User:Peteymills/Wiki research

I created an account on the "Meta Wiki" with the intention of proposing a scientific archive and peer-review system which I call "Wiki-Research." On the Meta Wiki, Wiki Research has several proposed meanings and indeed, the system I have come up with is more specific than that and so should eventually go by a different title. Nonetheless, on the Wikiversity I will keep that same working title. The purpose of this page is to create a draft outline of my proposal.

Summary
Wiki-Research is a scientific indexing, archiving and peer-review system in which users are uniquely identifiable (one user per account, one account per user) and verified. It takes the form of a distributed, peer-to-peer, universally readable file system for the purpose of crafting, disseminating and archiving scientific research.

Peer-to-Peer
The system must be independent of the type of network on which it is distributed, thus it can use TCP/IP networks, local-area networks, MPI networks, etc. All computers must contain all essential data contained in the database to the maximum extent possible. At minimum, every user is archived on each computing entity that is a member of the network. Data is similarly distributed with a maximum of redundancy to insure integrity, persistance and safety of the data.

User Accounts
Each user must have one and only one account and each account is associated with one and only one user and each user is a real person. User accounts must be verified. A user account will be associated with the user's credentials and his or her specific interests and expertise so that assignment of reviewers is easily automated. It will also be associated with all of the user's contributions to the system.

Peer Review
Formal peer review is double-blind, that is, both the contributor and the reviewer are anonymous at the time of review. Reviewers, however, must be held accountable, thus, at the end of the peer-review process, both the reviewer's identity and his or her comments must be made public. There will be a distinction between "formal" peer review and "informal" peer review. The informal peer review will take the form of open comments or a public discussion forum revolving around designated contributions.

Files for peer review must be formally designated as such and supplemented with a number of keywords or subject headings. Once designated as a formal peer-review file, the file will be locked into its current state and undergo a versioning process. Reviewers will be matched based on the subject designations and automatically contacted. Designated reviewers may either accept or reject the assignment. For informal peer-review, reviewers will still be contacted but there will be no obligation to either accept or reject the assignment and no obligation to write a review. There will also be no versioning of the file.

File Flags
At the moment of creation, each file must be assigned a set of flags or designations that determine both its purpose and treatment. There will be no read flags as all files will be readable by the entire community.

Write flag
The creator will have write priviledges on the file. He or she may also designate any number of collaborators who will also have write priviledges. The creator will also have the option release the file into the public domain so that the entire community is allowed modify the file. This type of file is mainly for intermediate results such as processed data, draft manuscripts and scientific software.