This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 11331 “The Future of Research Communication”. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together researchers from these different disciplines, whose core research goal is changing the formats, standards, and means by which we communicate science. p. 29

Force11 (the Future of Research Communication and e-Scholarship) is a community of scholars, librarians, archivists, publishers and research funders that has arisen organically to help facilitate the change toward improved knowledge creation and sharing. p. 30

While not disputing the expressive power of the written word to communicate complex ideas, our foundational assumption is that scholarly communication by means of semantically-enhanced media-rich digital publishing is likely to have a greater impact than communication in traditional print media or electronic facsimiles of printed works. p. 30

4.1 Open Citations David Shotton (University of Oxford, GB) p. 34

The Open Citations Corpus (http://opencitations.net/) contains references to 3.4 million biomedical papers, representing 20% of all PubMed Central papers published between 1950 and 2010, and including all the highly cited papers in every biomedical field. The Open Citations web site provides access to the entire corpus with various search and browse options. The entire dataset is downloadable in various formats, including RDF and BibJSON, for reuse. Incoming and outgoing citation networks of selected references can be displayed in different ways and downloaded in various formats. The citation contexts of in-text citation pointers can be used to text mine the cited article and pull back sentences of relevance, to assist the reader in evaluating the quality of the citation and the cited article. p. 34

4.4 Making “Beyond the PDF” Current Practice Philip E. Bourne (UC San Diego, US) p. 36

Notable is the announcement of SciVerse from Elsevier which in my opinion has the potential to change the model for how we interact with scholarly content. p. 36

5.4 The Execution of Dave 2.0 David De Roure (University of Oxford, GB) p. 38

What happens when there are millions and millions of executable papers, sitting there and executing away…? “Executable journals” are a step towards this vision – a world of inter-related executable papers, in an altered ecosystem of scholarly publishing with new intermediaries like observatories and a new role for existing intermediaries like libraries and publishers. What will that world be like? It will help us do science-on-demand (“press this button to re-run your thesis”), and equally the papers can process new data autonomously, generating new results which in turn get processed by other papers. You’ll receive an email notification when the paper you wrote five years ago is re-run with new inputs from other p. 38

people’s papers, and so will the people who used yours. Automated execution assists curation and indeed validation and quality checking – and whatever replaces peer review as we know it. Is this crazy or inevitable? The co-evolutionary design of the myExperiment website (http://www.myexperiment.org) for sharing computational workflows gives us as glimpse into this world of executable “Research Objects”, which is being further developed under the Wf4Ever project. p. 39

6.2 Tools and Technologies p. 41

The list of tools and notes are available at https://sites.google.com/site/futureofresearchcommunications/force11-tools-framework p. 41

The lifecycle of a Digital Artefact includes the following stages: 1. Registration 2. Certification 3. Archiving 4. Rewarding 5. Enactment of the Digital Artefact: presentations, videos 6. Writing 7. Discoursing 8. Reuse/reproduceable 9. Formal/informal 10. Granularity of publications p. 41

1. Literature programming 2. Scientific publication 3. Spreadsheets 4. Reference management system 5. Web pages + Web sites 6. Powerpoint 7. Word/LaTeX Google docs 8. Supercomputing 9. Gmail 10. Digital library p. 41

11. Poster 12. Analysis workflow + R scripts, codes 13. Amazon for papers/books 14. Catalogues: s/w library, N/F, Yellow pages 15. YouTube 16. Recordings/broadcast/webinars of talks and presentations 17. Dropbox/SlideShare/Flickr/Twitter 18. Terminologies, thesauri, mapping, ontology 19. Search services 20. Analytical tools to survey the landscape, understand the science landscape, i.e mapping and research literature mapping (Compendium, Cohere, knowledge mapping tools) 21. Technologies thesauri 22. Hubs for communication: centres of communities (automated versions of it) 23. What are the more formal tools 24. EasyChair: Conference reviewing tools 25. Journals 26. Grant repositories/applications: generating documents 27. Database schema, data repositories 28. Google+, Facebook, social networks 29. Learned society 30. Conference call (Skype) 31. Publishers 32. Chat 33. Directories of WhoIs/yellow pages p. 42

What are the properties necessary to move a tool from formal to informal tool for scientific communication/publishing? p. 43

1. Citeability 2. Preservation 3. Highly shareable 4. Known provenance 5. Trustable 6. Accessibility 7. Stability 8. Granularity 9. Cost (or lack of it) 10. Speed 11. IP restrictions 12. Inherent rewardability 13. Annotatabilility 14. Protectability 15. Staking claims 16. Portability 17. Palpability 18. Easiness 19. Capacity 20. Multimediality p. 43

What are the categories of tools that are emerging? p. 43

1. Communication Instant Discourse 2. Training tools 3. Document composition, editing, authoring 4. Sensemaking 5. Scientific publication/research sharing 6. Preservation/storage 7. Presentation 8. Search tools 9. Digital artefact/ file sharing 10. Terminology services 11. Curation: metadata/indexing/ managing tools 12. Social 13. Certification tools and commenting 14. Execution tools p. 43

Place your software in the Force11 roadmap and framework at at https://sites.google. com/site/futureofresearchcommunications/force11-tools-framework p. 45