Acknowledgements

[show] This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype method. The page identifier is Op_en2763
Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up.
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en2763}}

<section begin=glossary />

Acknowledgements is a particular discussion on the Discussion page of an object. It describes the contributions of each contributor of the object until the time when the acknowledgement is written. It also describes the resource contributors (such as research grants).

<section end=glossary />

Scope

How should the contributions of open assessors and other contributors be acknowledged in such a way that

• the process fulfils the criteria of open assessment, specifically open participation,
• the contributions are documented in a way that is accepted as a documentation of scientific merit,
• it is possible to make permanent documents out of the product and acknowledgements to be used in the same way as scientific articles?

Definition

Input

At least the following things are inputs to the process:

• An object that has been developed.
• Information from the history of the object about who contributed and what.
• Evaluation criteria for different kinds of contributions.

Output

The output describes who did and what in a way that is not disputed by any of the contributors.

Rationale

Acknowledgements must be some kind of a statement about who did and what. Therefore, it is easiest to make it in a form of a discussion that has the acknowledgement as its statement.

Result

Acknowledgement is a description of the cumulative work done for an object during its lifetime in Opasnet. It is located on the Talk page of the object. The statement has the following structure (example):

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: This object was developed as a collaborative work with the following contributions: N.N. acted as a moderator and collected most of the scientific information during 2007-2008. M.M. developed the formula, with the help of O.O. P.P. participated in the scientific discussion in a way that lead to a major improvement of the definition. The following contributors have made technical edits and improved grammar or style: Q.Q., R.R., S.S. The Institute of T. funded the work (research grant #) Closing statement: Accepted. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--1: . I participated in discussions that clearly improved the definition. --P.P. (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--2: . I participated in the discussions, too. I want my name in. --S.S. (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--3: . Your contributions did not hold against the criticism and they were removed in the end. So, you should get merit for participating in editing the page, but not get scientific merit --N.N. (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)