A bit over a year ago I got introduced to Qeios when I was asked to review an article by Michie, West, and Hasting: “Creating ontological definitions for use in science” (doi:10.32388/YGIF9B.2). I wrote up my thoughts after reading the paper, and the review was posted openly online and got a DOI. Not the first platform to do this (think F1000), but it is always nice to see some publishers taking publishing seriously. Since then, I reviewed two more papers.

One of these latter two was not a more traditional paper, but a different kind of research output: a definition, about “Drive-by Curation” (doi:10.32388/KBX9VO). Now about this output type, collaboratively working on definitions is something core to ontology development (e.g. see doi:10.1186/s13326-015-0005-5), but there is a clear need to discuss terminology. The GRACIOUS project in the EU NanoSafety Cluster also recognized this and set up a tool for this, their Terminology Harmonizer (doi:10.1016/j.impact.2021.100366).

This GRACIOUS tool, much more than what Qeios does, helps users. Unfortunately, and why how these topics nicely come together, writing definitions, thinking about when some zeta potential is different from another zeta potential, and the (drive-by) community curation, it needs transparency. I understand it, but landing on a login page is for me a recipe for a silent death as it disallows people to learn, without making an (time) investment first. That is what Qeios does differently: it is more FAIR.

So, that brings me to my last point in this post. Jente Houweling and I wrote up a definition for “Research Output Management” (doi:10.32388/ZNWI7T), based on our discussions about her research insights. See the screenshot below.

It has been reviewed internally, and by one independent peer (doi:10.32388/C3SJTN). But we would love to hear your review too. Just follow the instructions online. We are looking forward to reading your thoughts and to refining our definition.

Screenshot of the Qeios page for the Research Output Management paper.