1. Build databases where scientists can enter their methods and their results only, preferably in machine-readable format
2. Make it mandatory for publicly-funded scientists to enter their data into said databases
3. Let them publish all their introductions and discussions to whichever ancient publishing house they want
4. do good science
p.s. It really pisses me off when elsevier's sites take 50 seconds to give me the damn pdf. or when their javascript doesn't let me increase the font size. Or to open references in another tab.
I'm working on something similar to what you mentioned right now @ stirplate.io
However, to "make it mandatory for publicly-funded ..." is the difficult part. I'm with you 100% (I'm a neuroscience PhD) and this needs to happen,but it needs to come from the financial groups such as NIH/NSF who really just aren't good at dealing with this kind of stuff. They do make it mandatory, but they don't provide real resources for scientists to access these tools. Either that, or they are insanely difficult to use, so people don't do it.
I'm shooting for getting raw data from scientists, populating a huge f'in database that is linked and categorized, and if/when the group makes the data open, allow scientists to work off of that huge database of raw, unedited data. (this is specific to life sciences)
I've learned the following when talking about my company:
1. Investors don't want to hear about open science because they immediately get stuck on "what if they don't share". That tends to end the conversation.
2. Scientists themselves complain about the system, but are unwilling to change behaviors. So we have to address their fears in order to start making change (that is what I'm working on now)
3. Schools and funding agencies are using technology from 1996 and thinking that is sufficient. People need to be educated, and this is hard to do.
This isn't impossible and it's happening slowly...the mindset of academics just needs to change. (IMHO)
I too think it's impossible to make it work without giving an incentive to scientists. When so much of your career depends on where you publish, your whole career centers around how to publish and please editors, not how to solve problems. I am pessimistic that "if you build it, they will come". This needs to come from academia or in collaboration.
p.s. coincidence - i 'm doing a compneuro PhD myself
What you mentioned there is one of the reasons why I left to do this company. They won't come if you build it, and many of the science startups have felt that (Quartzy.com and ScienceExchange.com). Both are doing well, and run by awesome people, but academics need something to drive them to a site. Hence why I built data automation tools :)
Re: PhD,
Cool, best of luck:) If you ever want to work on something outside of academic work, let me know. I'm always looking for people to work on Stirplate with me. Also,I'm always happy to help people getting started, so feel free to reach out if you have any questions keith @ stirplate.io
I'll checkout stirplate.io, but just wanted to point out that there has been a mandate on the books for years now that if you get funding from a federal agency (that does a significant amount of research funding), you have to deposit that article in a public archive, usually Pubmed Central or an institutional repository.
The NIH now requires you to include the PMC ID number on any reference you cite in a grant, so they're more or less forcing people to comply, after years of asking, pleading, and begging.
Your stirplate.io mail server is rejecting emails ("kgonzales" from your HN profile). I was going to invite you to irc.freenode.net ##hplusroadmap (we do some non-academic do-it-yourself neurophysiology stuff on occasion).
Most journals now have a "supplementary content" section where authors upload their results. Anyone can download that without a subscription. Obviously, older results are still locked up in scanned PDFs that you can only download with a subscription, but your database idea doesn't solve that, either. As for making something mandatory... well, that's probably the best way to get scientists not to do something.
Practically speaking, papers probably won't look substantially different under your proposal than they do now, except that there is the extra step of uploading data to the "methods and data" database. Separating the body of the paper from the results and methods would be a pain in the ass to read, which means that you'll need to continue to include those things if you want anyone to cite your papers. As a result, I can't see anyone doing anything more than having an undergrad copy and paste the relevant sections into the database.
Frankly, I think you'd get better results by just declaring that the publishers have to give non-institutional readers free access.
2. Make it mandatory for publicly-funded scientists to enter their data into said databases
3. Let them publish all their introductions and discussions to whichever ancient publishing house they want
4. do good science
p.s. It really pisses me off when elsevier's sites take 50 seconds to give me the damn pdf. or when their javascript doesn't let me increase the font size. Or to open references in another tab.