
I'd rather publish these here than with Nature - untilHellbanned
https://onarbor.com/sites/biology
======
untilHellbanned
OP here. I'm a molecular biologist at Harvard and have published several times
in Nature, Science, and Cell, premier journals in our field. Ask me anything.

~~~
anigbrowl
I wish I had cottoned on to how interesting molecular biology is when I was in
grade school. But as regards this outlet, I have two questions:

1\. Is the tumblr-like format not a barrier to compared to the more typical
presentation of Abstract, full paper and so on? I found the UI pretty
unwieldy, but OTOH that's just a teething problem.

2\. As a well-established resercher, you still mention the journals as the
'gold standard' of quality. Obviously up-and-coming researchers desperately
want the recognition of being published in a prestigious forum like that in
order to advance their careers. What do you think would be the 'tipping point'
for publication in a new format journal like Onarbor to be sufficiently
prestigious for citing on a resume, attracting funding and so forth?

It's a nice site, but I can't help a feeling of 'academics reinvent tumblr,
hail it as the future of publishing.'

~~~
untilHellbanned
Great questions.

1\. tumblr-like format: feeds are the most common UI and are standard for
billions of people on the internet. Traditional academic publishing format are
known to significantly less than 1 million people. Onarbor would rather
satisfy the former.

2\. "What do you think would be the 'tipping point' for publication in a new
format". Onarbor devised the tipping point to be similar to what Stackoverflow
(SO) is doing with Reputation for computer programmers (REF below). The
reputation you earn on SO is replacing the C.V. in hiring decisions across
silicon valley. Onarbor more or less replicates SO's Reputation system with
the analogous intent to replace existing academia advancement mechanisms.

"It's a nice site, but I can't help a feeling of 'academics reinvent tumblr,
hail it as the future of publishing.'"

Onarbor is publishing and funding in one site. So the real goal is to do away
with Nature and the NIH at the same time. Try funding a work. Your experience
will quickly diverge from that you've had on Tumblr.

ref: [http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-
reputation](http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation)

~~~
anigbrowl
It's a great concept that deserves to succeed, and building the funding aspect
in at the infrastructure level might make a big difference. I also like the
deeper ambition o redefining the university - as an outsider to that system I
just feel a bit skeptical by default.

I'll dig into it further and see what happens!

------
lvs
I don't get it. Are you just trying to get money from people who aren't
qualified to critique your work? Publish in PLOS One if you really want to get
something out.

~~~
untilHellbanned
No journal besides Onarbor gives you money to publish. In fact, most journals
charge you thousands of dollars to publish (PLOS One charges $1,200). Onarbor
is publishing and funding in one platform, there is no comparison with any
journal.

Also, Onarbor enables infinite reviews. PLOS One and other journals have 2-3
reviewers, whom in most cases are your cronies who will accept your work no
matter what. Traditional evaluation is broken and virtually no academics
respect it. Onarbor easily 10X's the status quo of vetting work.

~~~
lvs
_Onarbor is publishing and funding in one platform_

Great pitch, but it's still just an attempt to end-run the funding process.
There should indeed be systematic solutions to the current problems, but this
attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil.

 _Traditional evaluation is broken and virtually no academics respect it._

There's plenty to criticize about peer review and about the big journals, but
to say "virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue.

~~~
untilHellbanned
"this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil."

Everything is snake oil and an end-run. Have you ever read Nature? Have you
ever submitted a grant to the NIH?

""virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue." Virtually no
reasonable academics respect it.

Read this, an interview of Sydney Brenner, no doubt one of the most important
biologist ever. [http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-
academ...](http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-
publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-
brenner/)

~~~
lvs
_Everything is snake oil and an end-run._

It sounds to me like you're conceding the argument. I don't disagree with your
sentiments about the quality of review, but manufacturing an outlet to
completely sidestep peer review (the key word being "peer") does nothing to
improve the situation. In fact, it runs directly counter to your stated
ambitions.

~~~
untilHellbanned
I've already addressed peer review with you earlier in this thread. You need
to look closer at the site.

Also, Onarbor devised reputation building to be similar to what Stackoverflow
(SO) is doing with Reputation for computer programmers (REF below). The
reputation you earn on SO is replacing the C.V. in hiring decisions across
silicon valley. Onarbor more or less replicates SO's Reputation system with
the analogous intent to replace existing academia advancement mechanisms.

ref: [http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-
reputation](http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation)

------
jostmey
I don't get it. What is this about? You have to write up your results or else
people outside of your specialty will not be able to appreciate your findings.
Publish somewhere instead of just throwing up some figures.

------
daemonk
I am a bioinformatician currently doing research. I don't really get this
website. Is it a crowd funding website or a publisher? Or both? So the point
is that you publish a proposal and people back it?

I think the site needs to be more explicit on its goals. The interface and
design of the site also needs to step it up a bit to appeal to a wider
audience.

~~~
untilHellbanned
"Is it a crowd funding website or a publisher? Or both?"

Both. Onarbor is publishing and funding in one platform. What specific about
the design needs to be stepped up to appeal to a wider audience?

~~~
daemonk
How does that work? So you publish a proposal, people back it, you get funding
for your work, then you publish on the same site? They seem like two very
different services. How are you synergizing the crowd funding aspect with the
publishing aspect?

In terms of the interface:

\- Too much white space in the main page makes it look like you just don't
have enough content.

\- Instead of the tour, "trying onarbor", I would explicitly describe what it
is and its goals. A tour of something I vaguely understand just confuses me
more.

\- Using the iframes on the frontpage to display projects depends completely
on having an appealing image which not all your projects will have. I would
simplify that down to a thumbnail with text so you can display more content.
Or a better format so you can provide both the image and description visibly.

\- When you click on the iframe in the front page to go to the projects page,
the whole browser window should go to the projects page, not just inside the
iframe.

\- Is there no link to browse projects from the front page?

~~~
untilHellbanned
Thanks for your questions.

"How does that work? So you publish a proposal, people back it, you get
funding for your work, then you publish on the same site? They seem like two
very different services. "

Onarbor is flexibly structured. It is up to the work creators to decide
what/when to post.

"How are you synergizing the crowd funding aspect with the publishing aspect?"

The crowdfunding is that anyone can back a work and that Onarbor requires at
least one person to back the work within the 1st week it is published. If
nobody backs the work within one week, then the work creator has the option to
self-back it to keep it live on the site.

"Too much white space in the main page makes it look like you just don't have
enough content."

We don't have enough content yet but are looking for submissions :). We just
launched last week.

"A tour of something I vaguely understand just confuses me more."

On the homepage, we can include a "Read more" link to reveal a longer
description. That is a good suggestion. We tried to do that in the slideshow
with the last slide by directing people to the help page,
[https://onarbor.com/help](https://onarbor.com/help).

"Using the iframes... appealing image".

This was a toss-up for us. We wanted to show off that all the works could be
embeds on any site (like a Youtube video but with payment buttons!).

"Is there no link to browse projects".

Another good suggestion. Onarbor is divided into sites, such as
[https://onarbor.com/sites/biology](https://onarbor.com/sites/biology), where
site-specific work is displayed. We will add a link on the homepage to browse
sites.

------
n0rm
A question about hype since I know almost nothing about biology;

Is this possible? -
[http://microfabricator.com/articles/view/id/538989659aad9d53...](http://microfabricator.com/articles/view/id/538989659aad9d533400009b/a-new-
idea-for-colonizing-space-3d-printing-humans-on-other-planets)

~~~
a_bonobo
Any kind of information has been successfully stored in bacteria (one example:
[1]), so it should be possible, but not easy to get that information to
another planet, especially since the human genome is much bigger than what we
can currently store in bacteria. The human genome is about 3.2 gigabasepairs,
a bacterial artificial chromosome can carry around 300 kilobasepairs, so you'd
need quite a few of these.

The actual '3D printing' is still far from possible, but not impossible. We
can synthesize DNA, but we can't synthesize bacteria (even though we now can
make artificial bacteria, but these are based on already existing bacteria
from which the DNA has been removed [2]).

Once we can synthesize bacteria we can go to bigger things like fungi, other
animals, humans. I'd give it 100-200 years.

[1]
[http://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume69/number19/12083-8...](http://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume69/number19/12083-8322)

[2]
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.253.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.253.html)

