Yes
According to the email received by Guy, they have.
I’m interested
It’s a good idea @alberto. I had some thoughts about it. At first I shared @maymay‘s view then I though that a joint paper would be good for the cause, thinking of a openandchange projectproposal (as shared with @noemi) with @costantino and @alexander.
Wouldn’t it be be more appropriate writing in a (health) care related journal? (@johncoate). What about a Open access (which ieee is not) to align with our mission. Lately tons of journals are desperately seeking contributions so we can look for a journal with a higher impact (factor). (JRRD comes to my mind. I will dig up another invitation). Then, how should we affiliate? Our home institution or as OpenCare?
However, i’m in! How do we start? Whos interrested?.
I can contribute with a few things related to rehabilitation technology (stroke, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, hand, foot,Functional electrical stimulation, EMG control, clinical evaluation, low back pain, biofeedback…)
Your call
Hey, it’s an opportunity. In practice, I imagine you already have a paper somewhere. What I would do is: email Katarzyna, ask her whether what you are doing is what she wants to publish, agree with her on deadlines etc. If you have to write a paper from scratch, this might be a bit tight.
You should affiliate as it suits you best!
Personally, I am not qualified for this stuff: I am a collective intelligence scholar using network math, not a technologist. You, @rune , on the other hand, you are working on a quality of like technology, and you could and should get the publications in!
To clarify my view, in case it’s necessary, I’m declining because I don’t see how spending my time on publishing a paper gets me closer to implementing Buoy in communities where it is desired and would be helpful. I am looking for food, shelter, direct collaborators, and maybe donations of money as a secondary option. I have very limited resources and spend most of my time trying to figure out how to stay sheltered and fed. Writing academic papers has proven to be a pointless distraction in the past and I don’t think this is an exception.
That’s not to say the topic sounds uninteresting or that I see no value in academic publishing at all. I do see value there, it’s just an extremele limited one that weighs poorly in comparison with more practical considerations. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
No worries
You do not have to explain, @maymay . I thought you might already have an academic format description of Buoy stashed somewhere – your documentation is advanced. But hey, no stress. As I wrote to Rune, it’s an opportunity.
Compiler error:Not enough arguments for the input function
Thanks @alberto, I see they have an impact factor of 1.1 and I hope my next publication is ending in a IF:3+ journal so as instituion it’s not interresting.
It’s not open access so no OpenCare value.
@maymay publishing in a serious journal has several advantages
-
You get peer reviewed = constructive criticism on your work and ideas
-
If it has impact factor your institution gets funding (OpenCare??)
-
You get rocksolid references for your work to claim: 1 seriousness and validity of your work, 2 your CV for grant/job applications, 3 visibility (also on google) 4. contacts …
However I would have imagined that the EU wants to see some publications for their money. (Often thats what counts most)
Therefore I say, let’s write a joint paper.
I’m into rehabilitation so I have an invitation from ‘Occupational Therapy International’ openaccess, peer-reviewed, IF 0.7
Who could be interested?
@rune , you’ve basically proved my point. None of the things you cite as benefits from academic publishing requires publishing an academic paper to receive. In fact, things like contacts, visibility on Google, and other benefits you cite, can be more quickly acquired by simply continuing to work on the project itself and its refine its impact instead of focusing on writing about the project and its impact.
Furthermore,
- I have never known academics to offer constructive criticism on any of my projects, because my projects are not meant for academics in the first place. The feedback of people who are not the target audience of a project is not valuable feedback, for obvious reasons.
- Academic funds are not distributed based on impact, they are distributed based on economic return on investment incentives. Academia is not a charity, it is a business. After all, if funds were provided based on impact, why would Edgeryders even exist?
- If someone needs the approval of third-party academics to judge my seriousness about my projects, rather than taking a look at the dedication I put into my projects, then that is not someone who has the necessary critical thinking skills to contribute positively to my project.
Academic publications about activist efforts are a waste of activist’s time, money, and mental energy. I can see the benefit for academics but I remain convinced the benefit to activists is small to non-existent. We have bigger fish to fry, and academics have more often than not proven to ally themselves with obstructionist forces. They are not people I generally trust or consider reliable friends.
Tears (of joy) in my eyes
Oh, @maymay you just saved my day. Laughing is supposed to be healthy and you are so right and so wrong at the same time. On the actual implementation of academia I share you 100% on the purpose of academia I 100% disagree. I’d love to offer you a beer but unfortunately I’m classified Academic. Disabled by a Ph.D leaving me as the worst scum of the universe. I hope to find some rehabilitation by joining opencare
Hope that Tesla, Alan Turing, Maxwell, Gallilei…have however been useful to the society. And maybe after we have revolutionized the world we can change academia as well. What about OpenAcademia?
P.S. You forgot to mention that we all serve one monopolized master: ‘thompson reuters’ (many TED videos and web posts about that).
I don’t know how to take this reply, so I’m going to assume good faith and say I’d be happy to accept that beer, if I ever make it to your neck of the woods.
My understanding of Edgeryders is that it is a community of people who want to work on problems facing the world as it is, not as it ought to be. It sounds like you acknowledge that academia, in practice, is a corrupted institution, but that in an ideal world it wouldn’t be the way that it is. Obviously, I agree. But I am not much interested in discussing a hypothetical ideal academia in the world as it ought to be, because I am too busy working within the constraints the world as it is. And, in the world that currently exists, spending time proposing papers for the meager crumbs of respectability offered by academia rather than actually working to advance the goals and projects those papers would be about, is not a priority I choose to make in my life, for all the reasons I articulated above.
acknowledge that academia, in practice, is a corrupted instituti
I did’nt say this. No need. Lots of people say it.
Question: I thought this was a OpenCare forum or am I in the wrong place?. I hope to contribute for the better. Observe, Invent solution and Implement.
OpenCare is supposed to challenge the system (page 1 of proposal) or is it just hot air to get the grant?
I don’t know. 
I’m only in this conversation because @alberto mentioned me.
As for hot air to get grant money, anything anyone wants to say to get grant money is fine by me! If you can get rich people to give you money, more power to you! My objection is not to fundraising, or fundraisers, per se. If I thought I had the skill to bullshit my way into a ton of grant money, I would apply for grants, myself! 
But in practice I’m a very bad liar, so fundraising has never been a good use of my time.
Kudos Maymay
I am not much interested in discussing a hypothetical ideal academia in the world as it ought to be, because I am too busy working within the constraints the world as it is.
Lovely put, @maymay. As someone who has been with Edgeryders from the beginning I can say you’re probably in the right place, and I fondly remember the early days when everything that sounded remotely similar to “company”, “business”, “consultancy”, “grant money” would sound frightening or despicable :-) Now, we seem to be better at finding workarounds that keep the spirit but leave some room for engagement with where resources are. Some deliverables like scientific articles will be there at the end of opencare, which is technically an EU funded project, but at the same time new relationships, communities and work done will be there too, and hopefully spinoffs to fly free, especially from OpenandChange swarm application.
Should we catch the fish before frying it?
On the serious side @maymay and @alberto. I see that the OpenCare proposal has 3 pages of academic references, part of the deal for getting a (lousy) 1.x Mio from the EU. (@maymay check my resentment about 5mio grant in Doctor… could you hack me a neuroprosthesis, please?). Unfortunately I fear that we need to “howl with the wolves” and publish peer reviewed to be egligible of funding for future rounds. As my director say (or copies) “publish or perish”.
I fear that we need to “howl with the wolves” and publish peer reviewed to be egligible of funding for future rounds. As my director say (or copies) “publish or perish”.
That’s fine. I never said you should stop trying to publish papers. I just said there’s no value in it for me.
I disagree with the implicit premise here (that one must play by current rules to change those rules), but I believe I have made my point about that clear, already.
Lots of possibilities
Just received another invitation:Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Journal.
Just to say that possibilities are plenty @alberto
Lesson learned!
Whoa, I did not think I’d cause such a stir. Apologies for any inconvenience. I do not know you well yet, and I took a shot in the dark as to whether you might like to publish papers or not (and where).
We all agree on one thing: publishing is not a high priority. I very occasionally publish my own results. I do it because I find the process of writing them in a watertight academic format useful. Once they are written, it makes sense to share them. But I am not a professional academic, and publish or perish does not concern me.
I do read academic papers. Ok, let’s just move on.
Glad I met you
Hi @maymay, glad I met you. Now we have talked about the weather i’d like to talk business. We are working on setting up a opencare-makerspace and your experience and software could be of great help. (I just read your description now so maybe im inferring too much).
You say you have implemented what I read as an automatic triage ( intake, dispatch, and field support toolkit). Could it be used to ‘filter’ people that could benefit from the initiative?
If I understand right this can be used as an alternative to 112. So Buoy poses a risk and could be identified as ‘responsible’ for causing health damage. Have you measures to protect you from that? Please consider share in my post:OpenCare Legal Evasion Guide: mortal issues for humans helping out
Ill continue over on your presentation post
You say you have implemented what I read as an automatic triage ( intake, dispatch, and field support toolkit). Could it be used to ‘filter’ people that could benefit from the initiative?
No, it’s not “automatic,” it’s logistical support, built for communities who take a participatory rather than expert-specialist approach to community needs. It doesn’t filter people, it supports people in self-selecting both what they want to do and who they want to do it with/receive care from. This is the opposite of filtering, but can be viewed as having a similar outcome.
Buoy poses a risk and could be identified as ‘responsible’ for causing health damage. Have you measures to protect you from that?
No, I haven’t. I basically don’t care at all about laws. I am not trying to abide by or interface with them in any way. I view laws primarily as unfortunate obstacles that should be removed, because such a concept as “the law” would not exist in a free society. I am writing free software, and I do not care what laws say. Laws are weapons of a ruling class. My only consideration for the law is to say fuck them, and fuck their laws. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
“Causing” health damage?
Wait, @rune . Why would Buoy be “causing” health damage?
Suppose I am a Buoy user. I get hurt. I call my friends. They come help me out, but do not do the right thing. As a result, I have some damage, let’s say an ugly scar that could have been less ugly.
Did they “cause” the damage? Isn’t that stretching causality a bit far?
Also, is this not exactly the same problem of people engaging in first aid, for example Community First Responders in the UK? It must have been solved by now, or these schemes would be dead in the water.
Legislation is stretching causality too far everyday
@alberto, I’m have no expertice in that matter and I dont like it, but here is my two cents.
You feel ill, pain i your arm and vomit in the mittle of the nigth (real life example). Instead of calling 112, you use Buoy to call a friend (thereby wasting precious time). Say, your friend takes his time. He sits with you a couple of hours, because it seems like a simple flu. Around noon they pick up your dead body - you had a cardiac arrest.
The judge will say: The provider of Buoy has discouraged that 112 was called, impeding immediate lifesaving intervention from a heart ambulance and could be condemned as culpable homicide and the friend (who could even be a doctor) did not recognize the symptoms (like in the real life example) is also responsible.
Every week the press has stories where ‘Legislation is stretching causality too far’ and to protect OpenCare initiatives against absurd accuses we will need to take constructive measures, but we need some legal people to help us.
Maybe we could even find a way of having a collective insurance (Open?). Could something like what e.g. AirBnB offers be an idea?