micropub workflows

[uclanate]

@physicsdavid I have a few questions about micropub workflows that I'd love to chat about sometime. I'm very interested in post-publication steps and managing community engagement dynamics, specifically how to control flow of issues, revisions, and state changes such as to "peer-reviewed" or "replicated." Let me know and we can chat more! Also happy to throw my questions up here, if that's preferable to email / call?

[physicsdavid]

@uclanate Let's start with your overview questions here as they might be of interest to the wider community, and we can move elsewhere if the discussion becomes less useful to a broad audience. Also looping @arfon in to this.

[uclanate]

Awesome. Focusing just at a theoretical level (i.e. assuming no technical constraints), and in no particular order:

1. How labile should micropub content be? For example, should it be like google doc (constant change) or traditional pub (little or no change)? I am torn about this... many in the open scholarship movement are obsessed with versioning, and I completely understand why. But from a user's perspective, that can be frustrating. "I referenced something, made assumptions based on it, and now it's changed! What the heck!" I do think there's no question that larger works should be versioned, since they are more complex and are almost assured to become outdated or inaccurate in some way over time. But for micropub, where much of the "soft" content and speculations have been gutted, I am hoping that after a brief period of review they can be locked down more or less for reuse in longer form narratives.

2. What role should peer review, if any, play in the visibility or qualification of micropub content? Should it be straight from my mouth to gods ear, or should peer reviewed content be marked as first class in some way. This depends partly on the platform as well as what exactly is being shared, but still curious to hear your thoughts and logic on this. Again I'm torn here, but am currently thinking that in depth peer review should play some role that is more than just comments and upvoting.

3. How do we roll micropubs into larger narratives? I've seen a couple options here- collections (e.g., this platform), project folders (e.g. OSF or figshare), and even something like branded hashtags or unique keywords could be considered a loose form of aggregation. The key concept I see here is how much control do you give the curator(s), vs potential contributors who may or may not be welcomed by the curator. Can I link my data to your project folder and say that it's BS? Or do you let the curator reject and tell a cleaner story?

I had some other thoughts, but the library is closing and I'm getting kicked out so have to go. That should be a good start though :). Look forward to hearing your thoughts!