Acknowledgements

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search


<section begin=glossary />

Acknowledgements is a particular discussion on the Discussion page of an object. It describes the contributions of each contributor of the object until the time when the acknowledgement is written. It also describes the resource contributors (such as research grants).

<section end=glossary />

Scope

How should the contributions of open assessors and other contributors be acknowledged in such a way that

  • the process fulfils the criteria of open assessment, specifically open participation,
  • the contributions are documented in a way that is accepted as a documentation of scientific merit,
  • it is possible to make permanent documents out of a page and its related acknowledgements to be used in the same way as scientific articles?

Definition

Input

At least the following things are inputs to the process:

  • An object that has been developed.
  • Information from the history of the object about who contributed and what.
  • Evaluation criteria for different kinds of contributions.

Output

The output describes who did and what in a way that is not disputed by any of the contributors.

Rationale

Acknowledgements must be some kind of a statement about who did and what. Therefore, it is easiest to make it in a form of a discussion that has the acknowledgement as its statement.

The contents of a page are typically only partly produced by the contributors from a scratch. Therefore, one of the contributors is called the shoulders of giants. This means existing information that was simply collected, not created by the contributors. So, the giants should get the merit for the information, while the contributors should get the merit for collecting it. The merit is distributed among the contributors according to the fractions of merit, which sum up to 1.

Result

Acknowledgement is a statement or a description of the cumulative work done for an object during its lifetime in Opasnet. It is based on the mutual agreement of the contributors. In the case of disagreement, a formal discussion should be started to clarify the positions and resolve the dispute.

The statement and possible discussions are located on the Talk page of the object under the subheading Acknowledgements. Acknowledgements is closely related to peer review and peer rating, which measure the respect (or merit) the page deserves. This respect is then further divided to the contributors based on the fractions or merit.

The statement has the following structure (example):

Acknowledgements for producing this page
The contents of a version of this page have been produced by the following group of contributors. One of the contributors is called the shoulders of giants. This means existing information that was simply collected, not created by the contributors. So, the giants should get the merit for the information, while the contributors should get the merit for collecting it. The merit is distributed among the contributors according to the fractions of merit, which sum up to 1.
Contributor Fraction of merit
N.N. 0.3
M.M. 0.15
O.O. 0.15
P.P. 0.08
Q.Q., R.R., S.S. 0.02
Shoulders of giants 0.3


The statement may be a result of a more detailed discussion where disputes have been resolved, for example the following.

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: This object was developed as a collaborative work with the following contributions:
  • N.N. acted as a moderator and collected most of the scientific information during 2007-2008.
  • M.M. developed the formula, with the help of O.O.
  • P.P. participated in the scientific discussion in a way that lead to a major improvement of the definition.
  • The following contributors have made technical edits and improved grammar or style: Q.Q., R.R., S.S.
  • The Institute of T. funded the work (research grant #)

Closing statement: Accepted.

(Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--1: . I participated in discussions that clearly improved the definition. (type: truth, paradigm: science view) --P.P.

⇤--2: . I participated in the discussions, too. I want my name in. (type: truth, paradigm: science view) --S.S.

⇤--3: . Your contributions did not hold against the criticism and they were removed in the end. So, you should get merit for participating in editing the page, but not get scientific merit (type: truth, paradigm: science view) --N.N.