The Collaboration Score is based on an algorithm that measures participants’ levels of sharing and interaction on team projects. Findings and insights are discussed on the Collaboration Platform where they are given provenance, archived, indexed, and potentially published in Rapid Science Open. This tracking can be unlocked for funders and administrators, providing an alternative to publishing metrics as a means of rewarding effective work on projects they sponsor.
The prototypes shown here were developed with generous funding from the NIH Common Fund, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Peaked Hill Fund. Sarcoma Central is a pilot project involving clinical researchers collaborating on drug discovery for this rare disease. Additional pilot research teams are needed and we have begun to assemble experts from diverse disciplines to advise, formulate, workshop and test the algorithm.
This is the private landing page of a team member in our pilot community, Sarcoma Central. The left panel shows the member’s C-Score compared with the team average, and credits accrued for sharing content and interacting with collaborators. The middle panel shows the Activity Feed with the latest content shared by, or with, the member and the groups she belongs to. Credits attributed to the member are shown next to each entry. The right panel displays the member’s groups and group scores, signaling levels of activity.
Project members can “unlock” their scores and content for fellow researchers, funders, and administrators. This Admin view is similar to a member’s personal dashboard, but displays only that individual’s activity and credits. Viewers can filter, search, and drill down to content of interest.
Group pages are identical to the member dashboard, except for the left panel, which shows the group C-Score over time and its comparison with the average score of all active groups. The leaderboard lists the top three contributors but not their scores.
Members can easily join and start open and closed groups and invite other validated members of the research team to participate.
Discussions can be launched from all posted content as well as independently. Credits accrue according to a formula shown in the final section of this prototype; the originator of the post is rewarded for all activity in the discussion and participants are rewarded for responses they generate. Because this page is the originator’s logged-in view, she can see the components of her score by clicking on her name.
Note the right panel that displays all those with whom the discussion is shared. The originator of the post determines whether other members can share it further.
The continually updated Evidence Review serves as the group’s “conference room” in which results are discussed in the context of newly published preprints and peer-reviewed articles. The Rapid Science Facilitator writes and maintains the review and taps team members to annotate it based on their latest findings—for example, whether they support or challenge the latest evidence.
Annotated discussions originate as notes, open questions, or proposed revisions (an example of the latter is shown as a callout above right). Group-designated reviewers/editors on the team can approve revisions which are then green-flagged and incorporated in the review by the facilitator. Periodically the latest version is formally peer reviewed and made available to the public as a “field guide” to the project topic (see Rapid Science Open below).
Author order on the publication is based on credited contributions. Citing early results and posting them as micropublications is awarded the most credit. Clicking on the name of each participant shows how they participated and their resulting credits. (See dropdown above left; this is the only instance in which members can see each other’s points, as determinants of author order.)
This is the open access section along the project continuum. The Sarcoma Central channel is shown with the latest version of the project’s Evidence Review and its cited micropublications (and other content categories as shown at the top left). This open diary of the project is intended only for collaborators’ works-in-progress; it is not a conventional journal for formal papers that emanate from the team’s research.
Discussion and group-creation tools that are available to team members in their closed space are also available to public registrants of Rapid Science Open. Useful public responses are curated by the facilitator for the project collaborators’ review. Most importantly, ongoing revisioning and versioning by team members at this juncture (post-publication) are encouraged and credited.
The diagram above shows how credits are accrued in discussions, which are a subset of activities reflected in the C-Score. Ongoing comments are credited to the originator of the post, as well as participants of the discussion, based on threads and responses they generate. The complete (exemplary) credit system can be viewed by following this link. Activities and credits shown here are for demonstration purposes only; they have been developed with feedback from researchers but will require extensive workshopping and piloting as the algorithm is formulated. See our growing team of advisors.