Your browser doesn't support the features required by impress.js, so you are presented with a simplified version of this presentation.

For the best experience please use a modern up-to-date browser.


For a better scientific conversation

Sébastien Lerique



Improvements, isolated

Symptoms of
lack of standards




Initiatives to integrate

  • Notebooks as publications /
  • Blog posts as publications
  • Post-publication peer review
  • Karma-based interactions (à la )
  • Wiki pages as publications
  • Wiki-like fluid authorship

Enclosure of knowledge

Timothy Gowers on his blog:

(...) something is deeply wrong with the current system of academic publishing. The basic point, which has been made innumerable times by innumerable people, is that the really hard parts — the writing of papers, and the peer review and selection of the ones to publish — are done voluntarily by academics, and modern technology makes things like typesetting and dissemination extremely cheap. And yet publishers are making more money than ever before.

2014 Elsevier costs:

University Cost Enrolment
Bristol £808,840 19,220
Cambridge £1,161,571 19,945
Edinburgh £845,000 31,323
ICL £1,340,213 16,000
Leeds £847,429 32,510
Manchester £1,257,407 40,860
Newcastle £974,930 21,055
Nottingham £903,076 35,630
Oxford £990,775 25,595
UCL £1,381,380 25,525

Symptoms of
lack of governance

Cross-community barriers

The unknown keywords problem

Large minimal contributions

Disincentives to cross-community work

Content incentives


Wiki-like article reader

Powered by background PDF processing

Results stored in the permanent distributed web

Catalyse cognitive support for ideation

PDF processing





Lift a roadblock for other initiatives to federate

Make reading research nicer from day 1

Bring all publications into the permanent web

  • Broader discussion on metrics
  • Open competition for search
  • Shared annotations everywhere
  • Relax conversation formats