5 ms·

What does "GitHub for Science" even mean? * Does it use git? * Does it have any version control? * Does it have community contributions to projects? * Does

What does "GitHub for Science" even mean? * Does it use git? * Does it have any version control? * Does it have community contributions to projects? * Does it let people open issues on projects? After clicking around for a bit, I'm not sure what parallels can be drawn between this site and github. Almost none of the core features of GitHub exist here. The site seems to be a PDF file upload site with a comment section.

samename 5y ago
You also can’t publish original papers there - they have to be public somewhere else first. Also, GitHub doesn’t have a coin system.
- stevejpurves 5y ago
  true and it seems like a similar scraped-abtract, someone-needs-to upload-the-pdf-so-we-don't-get-blamed model that you see on researchGate and academia.edu
push7joshi 5y ago
My guess is they are drawing parallels with it being open to submissions, sharing and reviews(discussion). Prolly not the source control part of it. Though that would be a good feature to have.
- SilverRed 5y ago
  That would make almost every website the "Github of X" since submissions, sharing and comments are core features of many websites. Is HN "the github of cynicism"?
surround 5y ago
It looks a lot more like "reddit for science." There's voting, comments, subreddits (hubs), and /all.
- tomrod 5y ago
  And ~doge~ research coin! I'm not sure I understand this.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Yes I find the best science is debated and evaluated with an up and down arrow. And double extra bonus points if you can hide other people’s work from view if you don’t agree with it!
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  That to me is the scariest thing of all. Science can't work if unpopular and controversial results are not given fair consideration. By all means, bad methodologies and conclusions that do not follow from the premises should be picked to pieces, but we can do without downvote campaigns and snarky "Big yikes, sweaty, don't you know that has been debunked already?" comments. Edit: thanks for the ResearchCoin, kind stranger!
joycesticks 5y ago
Hi there, My name's Pat and I'm on the ResearchHub team. Thanks for taking a look at our site and sharing these questions. "Github for science" is a phrase that describes our long term vision for what ResearchHub can become. As a poster below mentioned, today's product could be much better described as Reddit for science. It is a v1 designed to test a few hypotheses and bootstrap a community of early adopters who believe in our mission of open scientific communication. Overtime we plan to add more Github-esque (for lack of a better word) features. Next in the pipeline is a science-specific collaborative text editor that will help teams of scientists publish any kind of research output directly to ResearchHub. We are still in very early days and have not yet found product market fit. The more critical thinkers we have the better, so if you have any interest in helping us improve ResearchHub I can share a link to our community slack channel. Thanks again for your interest in our project!
- sebmellen 5y ago
  Before you try to “fix” science like this, I would highly recommend walking through your idea with people at an open science conference like RDA Alliance or FORCE11 to get their input. Before my company was acquired (https://assembl.net https://assembl.net) I was building something quite similar. I went to many such conferences to meet with my “target demographic,” and I found many of my preconceptions about the future of open science were quite incorrect. I think I attended more than 10 other conferences, and I always found that the problems that needed to be solved were more social and legal than technological (though technology played a crucial role in glueing these pieces together). I also know many people who tried to do something like what you’re doing. For example, I went through the CV Labs incubator with the guys at https://orvium.io https://orvium.io. Now I’m working on https://intpub.org https://intpub.org and https://liras.org https://liras.org. The deeper problems, I’ve found, are much less “sexy” because they’re not as technological. The fixes need to come in the form of improved licensing models, better publication of pre-publication results, etc. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about these problems, so I’d be interested to talk and hear where you’re at. If you’d like some sober counsel I’d be glad to provide it.
- cunidev 5y ago
  Thank you for your clarifications. I am still a bit confused by the "need" of having a cryptocurrency built into this tool, especially at such an early stage, and as cryptos are getting more fame of financial speculation and less of actual means of payment.
Ankaios 5y ago
What does "GitHub for Science" even mean? Personally, I think it means that the site is an attempt to centralize something that is currently decentralized.
- max46 5y ago
  >I think it means that the site is an attempt to centralize something that is currently decentralized with that definition, almost half the internet would be "GitHub for...". at some point, you have to realize that it's just marketing BS and they have almost nothing in common with it.

samename 5y ago

You also can’t publish original papers there - they have to be public somewhere else first. Also, GitHub doesn’t have a coin system.

stevejpurves 5y ago
true and it seems like a similar scraped-abtract, someone-needs-to upload-the-pdf-so-we-don't-get-blamed model that you see on researchGate and academia.edu

push7joshi 5y ago

My guess is they are drawing parallels with it being open to submissions, sharing and reviews(discussion). Prolly not the source control part of it. Though that would be a good feature to have.

SilverRed 5y ago
That would make almost every website the "Github of X" since submissions, sharing and comments are core features of many websites. Is HN "the github of cynicism"?

surround 5y ago

It looks a lot more like "reddit for science." There's voting, comments, subreddits (hubs), and /all.

tomrod 5y ago
And ~doge~ research coin! I'm not sure I understand this.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Yes I find the best science is debated and evaluated with an up and down arrow. And double extra bonus points if you can hide other people’s work from view if you don’t agree with it!
Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
That to me is the scariest thing of all. Science can't work if unpopular and controversial results are not given fair consideration. By all means, bad methodologies and conclusions that do not follow from the premises should be picked to pieces, but we can do without downvote campaigns and snarky "Big yikes, sweaty, don't you know that has been debunked already?" comments. Edit: thanks for the ResearchCoin, kind stranger!

joycesticks 5y ago

Hi there, My name's Pat and I'm on the ResearchHub team. Thanks for taking a look at our site and sharing these questions. "Github for science" is a phrase that describes our long term vision for what ResearchHub can become. As a poster below mentioned, today's product could be much better described as Reddit for science. It is a v1 designed to test a few hypotheses and bootstrap a community of early adopters who believe in our mission of open scientific communication. Overtime we plan to add more Github-esque (for lack of a better word) features. Next in the pipeline is a science-specific collaborative text editor that will help teams of scientists publish any kind of research output directly to ResearchHub. We are still in very early days and have not yet found product market fit. The more critical thinkers we have the better, so if you have any interest in helping us improve ResearchHub I can share a link to our community slack channel. Thanks again for your interest in our project!

sebmellen 5y ago
Before you try to “fix” science like this, I would highly recommend walking through your idea with people at an open science conference like RDA Alliance or FORCE11 to get their input. Before my company was acquired (https://assembl.net https://assembl.net) I was building something quite similar. I went to many such conferences to meet with my “target demographic,” and I found many of my preconceptions about the future of open science were quite incorrect. I think I attended more than 10 other conferences, and I always found that the problems that needed to be solved were more social and legal than technological (though technology played a crucial role in glueing these pieces together). I also know many people who tried to do something like what you’re doing. For example, I went through the CV Labs incubator with the guys at https://orvium.io https://orvium.io. Now I’m working on https://intpub.org https://intpub.org and https://liras.org https://liras.org. The deeper problems, I’ve found, are much less “sexy” because they’re not as technological. The fixes need to come in the form of improved licensing models, better publication of pre-publication results, etc. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about these problems, so I’d be interested to talk and hear where you’re at. If you’d like some sober counsel I’d be glad to provide it.
cunidev 5y ago
Thank you for your clarifications. I am still a bit confused by the "need" of having a cryptocurrency built into this tool, especially at such an early stage, and as cryptos are getting more fame of financial speculation and less of actual means of payment.

Ankaios 5y ago

What does "GitHub for Science" even mean? Personally, I think it means that the site is an attempt to centralize something that is currently decentralized.

max46 5y ago
>I think it means that the site is an attempt to centralize something that is currently decentralized with that definition, almost half the internet would be "GitHub for...". at some point, you have to realize that it's just marketing BS and they have almost nothing in common with it.