Interdiscplinary Workshop on Trust and Reputation

The LiquidPub teams invites you to join our online-workshop on trust and reputation!

You can find all information here: Please take part in discussing the abstracts and help them grow into full papers by making fruiful comments. (PS. It is a moderated discussion. Once you post something, the moderators of the conference will be notified of your comment and can make it visible).

There will also be a live event in Paris on the 14-15.12.2010. You can find the schedule for the programme here: ScheduleTrust-Workshop Paris


SURVEY: Scientific Publishing and Web 2.0 – Please participate!

The LiquidPub team has just launched a questionnaire on Scientific Publishing and Web2.0.  The aim of the survey is to gauge the potential acceptance of a Web 2.0 inspired production and dissemination of scientific publications by different scientific communities and by practitioners. The survey is hence tailored for researchers in all domains as well as for people working in the publishing industry.
You can find the survey at the following link:

For us to develop tools that are useful for reseachers from different backgrounds it is essential that we know about the needs and wishes in different academic domains. Therefore your participation in this survey is very much appreciated and will have effects on the tools being developed!

Please note that the survey is  completely anonymous and that the data will be analyzed in an aggregated form only. Results will be disseminated through the project’s website:

For any questions, please feel free to contact Judith and Diego at

New LiquidPub paper: Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems

Congratulations to the Fribourg team whose paper on Recommender Systems has just been published in PNAS! You can find the abstract as well as the link to the paper below:


Recommender systems use data on past user preferences to predict possible future likes and interests. A key challenge is that while the most useful individual recommendations are to be found among diverse niche objects, the most reliably accurate results are obtained by methods that recommend objects based on user or object similarity. In this paper we introduce a new algorithm specifically to address the challenge of diversity and show how it can be used to resolve this apparent dilemma when combined in an elegant hybrid with an accuracy-focused algorithm. By tuning the hybrid appropriately we are able to obtain, without relying on any semantic or context-specific information, simultaneous gains in both accuracy and diversity of recommendations.

Read more here:

Podcast: Open Access in Philosophy

For those of you who understand German there has been a recent broadcast on “Open Access in Philosophy” at the Vienna Radio Station Radio Orange. Hakan Gürses and Herbert Hrachovec, both from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Vienna, talk about the theoretical basis of „Open Access“ as well as its potential to change philosophy as an academic discipline.

Here you can find the abstract – in German though:

Modelle freien Zugangs zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen gewinnen durch wachsende Möglichkeiten des “Online-Publizierens” an Bedeutung. “Open Access” betrifft jedoch nicht nur die Frage der Urheberschaft, sondern Produktion, Auswahl, Evaluation und Zirkulation wissenschaftlichen Wissens überhaupt. Hakan Gürses spricht mit Herbert Hrachovec über theoretische Grundlagen von „Open Access“ sowie dessen Potenzial, Philosophie als akademische Disziplin zu verändern. Gesendet am 17.02.2010 auf Radio Orange 94.0.

And here is the link to the podcast:[pointer]=0&tx_relecture_pi1[showUid]=1224

On the Epistemic Value of Reputation: The place of ratings and reputational tools in knowledge organization

Gloria Origgi and me have presented a paper at the ISKO 2010 in Rome last week.  Here is a link to the conference on “Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization”:
There have been many interesting papers – a list of them can be found here:

I have attached the abstract of our own paper as well as a link to a pre-version of the article on Gloria’s Blog below.


In this paper we want to explore the epistemological relevance and value of reputation understood as evaluative social information. Using reputation to classify and assess an agent or an item can be epistemologically useful in the absence or – as is especially relevant today – overabundance of information. However, in order to be and remain epistemically useful and ethically just it has to be open to constant scrutiny and revision. We will introduce a model of rational consensus as an example for the rational use of reputation for epistemic purpose before analyzing different reputational tools on the Web. We will conclude our paper with a critical comment on the potential danger of using social information to evaluate information and knowledge claims, resp. to warn from epistemic injustices on the Web and elsewhere.

Read more at:

Study: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines.

Last week a colleague from Vienna made me aware of a very interesting – and extensive study on the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication.  The study is available here:;pageNum=6#.

The authors summarize their report as follows:

“We describe here the results of our research conducted between 2007 and 2010. In the interest of developing a deeper understanding of how and why scholars do what they do to advance their academic fields, as well as their careers, our approach focused on finegrained analyses of faculty values and behaviors throughout the scholarly communication lifecycle, including career advancement, sharing, collaborating, informal and formal publishing, resource generation, and engaging with the public. The report is based on the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. We concentrated on assessing scholars’ attitudes and needs as both producers and users of research results. The report is divided into eight chapters, which include a document synthesizing our research results plus seven detailed disciplinary case studies. This executive summary also includes overviews for each of the disciplinary case studies.”  (

The full report can be found here:

Harley, Diane, Acord, Sophia Krzys, Earl-Novell, Sarah, Lawrence, Shannon, & King, C. Judson. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.

Welcome to the Blog of the LiquidPub Project!

This is the blog of the LiquidPub project. On this blog we will post updates about new developments within the project. And we will also use it as a platform to share and discuss related and interesting things that we came across in the course of our research.

The LiquidPub project proposes a paradigm shift in the way scientific knowledge is created, disseminated, evaluated and maintained. This shift is enabled by the notion of Liquid Publications, which are evolutionary, collaborative, and composable scientific contributions. Many Liquid Publication concepts are based on a parallel between scientific knowledge artifacts and software artifacts, and hence on lessons learned in (agile, collaborative, open source) software development, as well as on lessons learned from Web 2.0 in terms of collaborative evaluation of knowledge artifacts.

The project is an international and interdisciplinary collaboration between the following partners:  IIIA-CSIS (Barcelona), Institut Nicod-CNRS (Paris), Springer Science (Heidelberg), University of Fribourg and University of Trento. Each of the project member can contribute to the blog, but there are two main bloggers: Aliaksandr Birukou (birukou AT based in Trento and Judith Simon (judith.simon AT based in Paris. While Aliaksandr will keep you updated about technical developments, Judith’s focus is on conceptual questions. In case of any question, comments and suggestions,  please feel free to contact us!

More information about the project is available at
More information about the research results and tools we develop is at If you would like to participate in software development of the LiquidPub Platform, see the developers’ section of the website at

The LIQUIDPUB project acknowledges the financial support of the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme within the Seventh Framework Programme for Research of the European Commission, under FET-Open grant number: 21336o.