In 1937, just one year before suddenly disappearing under mysterious circumstances, a brilliant italian physicist named ETTORE MAJORANA predicted the existence of a very peculiar particle. Having the exciting property of being its own antiparticle (that is it simultaneosly behaves as matter and anti-matter) the elusive “MAJORANA PARTICLE” has been finally observed by a group of scientists at Princeton University . To achieve the important result they used a two-story-tall microscope to observe the end of a superconducting wire.

In a breakthrough victory for open access, the EU’s European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a system last week that provides researchers and the public with the vast majority of data from clinical trials. While generally resistant to such developments, some pharmaceutical companies are already opening up their data to scrutiny. In the US, NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov hosts a similar database for voluntary submission of public and private clinical trial results. By January 1, 2015, however, all companies in the EU will be REQUIRED BY LAW to submit trial data for newly approved drugs. FDA is considering adopting such a policy, with safety and efficacy data-mining projects in mind. As the analysis from ScienceInsider notes: Published journal articles often contain the main outcomes, . . . but lack detailed data and information about study design, efficacy, and safety analysis, which might shed a different light on the results when analyzed by others; moreover, some trials aren’t published at all. The AllTrials campaign has argued that the details of every trial should be publicly available for anyone to study. Traditional publication formats disconnected from modern needs? A move toward data-rich scientific content? Opening up the process of verification and analysis to a wider audience? It’s as if science was always meant to be open, or something. Naturally, there are caveats to the ruling. Only identified researchers can download searchable trial results and data, while registered public users can only view results on-screen. Further, certain types of commercially relevant data may be redacted by companies, with the EMA providing an 18 month window before completed trial results are finalized and posted. Still, however, this represents a huge step forward for widespread access to and synthesis of information that could be critical for improving patient outcomes. Long-sought by many researchers, the beneficial network effects of open trial data have been lauded in the literature, with comparisons made to successes in the open-source community . In one example, data-sharing led to rapid analysis and determination of treatment for a deadly _e coli_ outbreak in 2011. By broadly applying standard protocols to ease the access and use of clinical trial information, researchers contend we will see huge health care improvements. Results include learning what treatments are best in which circumstances, determining contraindications faster, and increasing adoption and innovation rates in treatments. Here’s to hoping EMA’s actions are successful, FDA approves similar measures, and science in aggregate opens up to take advantage of these synergetic network effects. EMA Q&A release

Simple, mundane tasks can take huge tolls on our productivity. A growing body of research is quantitatively demonstrating the existence of willpower depletion, so don’t be a statistic. Authorea helps cut out friction associated with academic writing and editing, so you can get back to doing what you love instead of just writing about it. HERE’S THE SITUATION: You’ve spent months (or even years) running and reproducing experiments, keeping meticulous notes, collecting and annotating data, writing code, writing grant applications, presenting your progress and, occasionally, sleeping. All for that slam-dunk publication. Which, finally, you are writing up. BUT THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS. From stylistic preferences and building consensus with your colleagues, to back-up paranoia, to re-re-re-formatting your article for the ~~reach~~, ~~next best~~, ~~achievable~~, journal of last resort, Authorea has you covered. AN AUTHOREA-TATIVE DIFFERENCE As the recent over 200-author CERN paper demonstrates, Authorea can really kill it when it comes to collaborating, on any scale. This is particularly powerful, given the well-feared notion that communication complexity increases as the SQUARE of the number of people on a project. Regardless of your level of distribution (worldwide or just down the hall), with Authorea, everyone you care to include can view, edit, comment, commit, and even upload and review data, code, and figures. Let’s consider that last point for a minute. No longer will you have to fumble for flash drives, attach and contextualize via email, or compile, edit, and view in separate programs. All the data and code associated with your figures is online in the upper left-hand folder for your collaborators to play with. Further, if your document is public, members from the wider Authorea community can comment, verify, and even fork it - increasing your FF and contribution to science. Pretty sweet. Authorea, given the oft-made comparisons to GitHub and Google Docs, also helps with versioning updates and the distributed editing of your manuscript. Let’s say your PI isn’t thrilled with your phrasing or explanation in the Discussion. With Authorea, you can: lock the section while you edit it (i.e. no one is looking over your shoulder, judging); commit the update for all to see (oh, how they will marvel); get real-time feedback through additional comments and edits; and, when your PI has a change of heart, you can easily revert back to the section’s previous version (by clicking on that handy “History” clock icon). So, Authorea provides a platform for collaborative writing and review of your manuscript, an easy and automated citation mechanism, a one-stop repository for all your figures’ data, code, and editing, and even lets you get pre-publication feedback from your peers. What’s more, Authorea will also format your manuscript for the journal of your choice - text, figures, bibliography and all - at a click of a button. TWO QUESTIONS: 1. Why _wouldn’t_ you use Authorea for your next collaborative publication? 2. _What would you do with the time saved_ when you’d otherwise be emailing around drafts and data, sharing and modifying code, clarifying, citing, and formatting? Let us know in the comments!

RISE AND FALL OF THE BIGGEST DISCOVERY OF THE CENTURY HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF OPEN, COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE. On 17 March 2014 BICEP2, a South Pole based experiment aimed at studying the very first moments of the universe, made a sensational announcement. They claimed to have detected for the first time the signature of an extremely rapid expansion of space that occurred right after the universe’s birth. This expansion, also called inflation, is believed to be responsible for the existence of large-scale structures like clusters of galaxies, as well as to explain why the properties of the universe appear to be the same for all observers. If confirmed, the existence of inflation would represent the first evidence of a fundamental connection between gravity (general relativity) and quantum physics.

We are very excited to announce that Authorea has recently raised its first round of funding for a total of $610k with a joint investment by FF VENTURE CAPITAL and NY ANGELS! ffVC is an institutional venture capital investor in seed-stage companies based in New York City. NY Angels is the largest and most active technology-focused angel investment organization on the East Coast. This investment is important for Authorea on many levels. First of all, we are solidifying and growing our team. We're hiring! If you are interested in making science better, you will enjoy working with us. Drop us a line. A bigger team means that Authorea will get better faster. We will keep working toward our mission to accelerate science, to improve dissemination and quality of research results and to promote Open Science. We look forward to making Authorea your platform of choice for scholarly writing, research collaboration, and data sharing. We are also thrilled to announce that our brand new Board of Directors will welcome JOHN FRANKEL, CEO of ff Venture Capital, and BRIAN COHEN, Chairman of NY Angels. Together with John and Brian, the board will also be composed of MATTEO CANTIELLO (formerly Authorea's Scientific Advisor) and us, the two co-founders, Nathan and Alberto. We will be announcing our full team and advisory board in the next few weeks. _Happy writing!_ ---Nathan and Alberto

_A 5-minute video demonstration of this paper is available at this YouTube link._ PREAMBLE A variety of research on human cognition demonstrates that humans learn and communicate best when more than one processing system (e.g. visual, auditory, touch) is used. And, related research also shows that, no matter how technical the material, most humans also retain and process information best when they can put a narrative "story" to it. So, when considering the future of scholarly communication, we should be careful not to do blithely away with the linear narrative format that articles and books have followed for centuries: instead, we should enrich it. Much more than text is used to communicate in Science. Figures, which include images, diagrams, graphs, charts, and more, have enriched scholarly articles since the time of Galileo, and ever-growing volumes of data underpin most scientific papers. When scientists communicate face-to-face, as in talks or small discussions, these figures are often the focus of the conversation. In the best discussions, scientists have the ability to manipulate the figures, and to access underlying data, in real-time, so as to test out various what-if scenarios, and to explain findings more clearly. THIS SHORT ARTICLE EXPLAINS—AND SHOWS WITH DEMONSTRATIONS—HOW SCHOLARLY "PAPERS" CAN MORPH INTO LONG-LASTING RICH RECORDS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE, enriched with deep data and code linkages, interactive figures, audio, video, and commenting.

source  ee  eμ 1 & 50 & 837 & 970 2 & 47 & 877 & 230 3 & 31 & 25 & 415 4 & 35 & 144 & 2356 5  45  300  556

This week we are launching a brand new look for Authorea and a couple of exciting new features aimed at making scientific research more interactive. Since the very beginning of Authorea, we have been striving to make collaborative scientific writing as easy as possible. But in addition to WRITING, we are also creating a space for new ways of READING science, and EXECUTING it. For example, if you are a scientist, chances are that you do a lot of data analysis and you might want to visualize and provide access to your data in some FUN, NEW, INTERACTIVE, MORE MEANINGFUL, DATA-DRIVEN ways, rather than the usual static, data-less plot. There are many ways to create this kind of interactive plots. In this short blog post we will look at two of them.

A 1. This is not a good thesis because it is an obvious statement 2. Same with this one. 3. This is a good example of a thesis statement because while it is obvious that Gaia gave advice to Zeus, it is not certain that without her advice Zeus would not have succeeded. Because of this, it sets up a specific provable point that the author can persue. B Through the acceptance of the apple, the “author” of the Garden of Eden myth portrays women as the ultimate source of evil. This thesis is good because it contradicts the normal thinking that the snake is the representation of evil and is something one could look to prove in the text.

HOW IS ACADEMIC RESEARCH EVALUATED? There are many different ways to determine the impact of scientific research. One of the oldest and best established measures is to look at the Impact Factor (IF) of the academic journal where the research has been published. The IF is simply the average number of citations to recent articles published in such an academic journal. The IF is important because the reputation of a journal is also used as a proxy to evaluate the relevance of past research performed by a scientist when s/he is applying to a new position or for funding. So, if you are a scientist who publishes in high-impact journals (the big names) you are more likely to get tenure or a research grant. Several criticisms have been made to the use and misuse of the IF. One of these is the policies that academic journal editors adopt to boost the IF of their journal (and get more ads), to the detriment of readers, writers and science at large. Unfortunately, these policies promote the publication of sensational claims by researchers who are in turn rewarded by funding agencies for publishing in high IF journals. This effect is broadly recognized by the scientific community and represents a conflict of interests, that in the long run increases public distrust in published data and slows down scientific discoveries. Scientific discoveries should instead foster new findings through the sharing of high quality scientific data, which feeds back into increasing the pace of scientific breakthroughs. It is apparent that the IF is a crucially deviated player in this situation. To resolve the conflict of interest, it is thus fundamental that funding agents (a major driving force in science) start complementing the IF with a better proxy for the relevance of publishing venues and, in turn, scientists’ work. RESEARCH IMPACT IN THE ERA OF FORKING. A number of alternative metrics for evaluating academic impact are emerging. These include metrics to give scholars credit for sharing of raw science (like datasets and code), semantic publishing, and social media contribution, based not solely on citation but also on usage, social bookmarking, conversations. We, at Authorea, strongly believe that these alternative metrics should and will be a fundamental ingredient of how scholars are evaluated for funding in the future. In fact, Authorea already welcomes data, code, and raw science materials alongside its articles, and is built on an infrastructure (Git) that naturally poses as a framework for distributing, versioning, and tracking those materials. Git is a versioning control platform currently employed by developers for collaborating on source code, and its features perfectly fit the needs of most scientists as well. A versioning system, such as Authorea and GitHub, empowers FORKING of peer-reviewed research data, allowing a colleague of yours to further develop it in a new direction. Forking inherits the history of the work and preserves the value chain of science (i.e., who did what). In other words, forking in science means _standing on the shoulder of giants_ (or soon to be giants) and is equivalent to citing someone else’s work but in a functional manner. Whether it is a “negative” result (we like to call it non-confirmatory result) or not, publishing your peer reviewed research in Authorea will promote forking of your data. (To learn how we plan to implement peer review in the system, please stay tuned for future posts on this blog.) MORE FORKING, MORE IMPACT, HIGHER QUALITY SCIENCE. Obviously, the more of your research data are published, the higher are your chances that they will be forked and used as a basis for groundbreaking work, and in turn, the higher the interest in your work and your academic impact. Whether your projects are data-driven peer reviewed articles on Authorea discussing a new finding, raw datasets detailing some novel findings on Zenodo or Figshare, source code repositories hosted on Github presenting a new statistical package, every bit of your work that can be reused, will be forked and will give you credit. Do you want to do a favor to science? Publish also non-confirmatory results and help your scientific community to quickly spot bad science by publishing a dead end fork (Figure 1).

A “The mother archetype was repsented on Mt. Olympus by Demeter, whose most important roles were as mother (of Persephone) and as provider of food (as Goddess of Grain) and spiritual sustenance (the Eleusian Mysteries). Although other goddess were also mothers (Hera and Aphrodite), her daughter was Demeter’s most dignificant relationship” (Demeter the Archetype, 1). B “You’ve suffered pain and humiliation. / Your mind wanders into distraction, / like a bad doctor taken ill / and unable to find the cure” (Prometheus Bound, pg 2). C “Every woman who falls in love with someone who is also in love with her at that moment is a personification of the Aphrodite archetype” (Aphrodite the Archetype, 1). “A new feature, interpolated by Plato, is the vision of the structure of the unicerse, in which the ’pattern set up in the havens ... is revealed to the souls before they choose a new life” (Plato, Republic 349). “Ouranos, father of all, eternal cosmic element, / primeval, beginning of all and end of all, / lord of the universe, moving about the earth like a sphere /home of the blessed gods” (Orphic Hymns, 1-4).

One more edit! Here I can write whatever I like in simple text or in _Latex_ as well. I can use the TOOLBAR above too. Let me paste some text: Astronomers produce and peruse vast amounts of scientific data. Let’s add a citation: . And a medical reference too: Making these data publicly available is important to enable both reproducible research and long term data curation and preservation. Because of their sheer size, however, astronomical data are often left out entirely from scientific publications and are thus hard to find and obtain. In recent years, more and more astronomers are choosing to store and make available their data on institutional repositories, personal websites and data digital libraries. In this article, we describe the use of personal data repositories as a means to enable the publication of data by individual astronomy researchers. And some Latex: By associativity, if ζ is combinatorially closed then δ = Ψ. Since ${S^{(F)}} \left( 2, \dots,-} \right) \to }{},$ $l < \cos \left( \cup P \right)$. Thus every functor is Green and hyper-unconditionally stable. Obviously, every injective homeomorphism is embedded and Clifford. Because 𝒜 > S, $$ is not dominated by b. Thus Tt > |A|. Obviously, WΞ is composite. Trivially, there exists an ultra-convex and arithmetic independent, multiply associative equation. So $\infty^{1} > $. It is easy to see that if v(W) is not isomorphic to 𝔩 then there exists a reversible and integral convex, bounded, hyper-Lobachevsky point. One can easily see that $}} \le 0$. Now if $}} > h' ( \alpha )$ then zσ, T = ν. Clearly, if ∥Q∥∼∅ then every dependent graph is pseudo-compactly parabolic, complex, quasi-measurable and parabolic. This completes the proof.

Astronomers produce and peruse vast amounts of scientific data. Making these data publicly available is important to enable both reproducible research and long term data curation and preservation. Because of their sheer size, however, astronomical data are often left out entirely from scientific publications and are thus hard to find and obtain. In recent years, more and more astronomers are choosing to store and make available their data on institutional repositories, personal websites and data digital libraries. In this article, we describe the use of personal data repositories as a means to enable the publication of data by individual astronomy researchers. Here I can type some random text and use the TOOLBAR above.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY Lorenz Boosts For a boost in the x direction, t' = \gamma ( t - v x) \\ x' = \gamma (x - vt) \\ y' = y \\ z' = z \\ Fun with 4 Vectors = (\gamma, \gamma v) \\ \cdot = -1 \\ } \cdot } = 0 \\ E_{obs} = - p \cdot \\ ^2 = m^2 \\ E^2 = p^2 + m ^2 \\ More special relativity l' = {\gamma} \\ \Delta x' = \gamma (\Delta x - v \Delta t) \\ \Delta t' = \gamma (\Delta t - x \Delta x) \\ u' = {1- uv} where \gamma = {} Principle of Equivalence elevators in a feely falling elevator on earth experience the same physics as someone who is not in the elevator. From this you can get the bending of light weight in elevator =m(g + a) so if a = −g then w = 0 so gravity is not a real force and can be seen as a curvature in spacetime

The ${\rm NO}$ experiment is a long-term experiment looking to study neutrino oscillations using the newly upgraded NuMI (Neutrinos at the Main Injector) beam at Fermilab, allowing for more sensitive measurements than possible before. Following the non-zero measurement of the mixing angle (θ₁₃), there is hope that the collider can now be used to study the neutrino mass hierarchy with more certainity, as well as put a limit on the CP violating phase (δcp). In this paper, I will briefly introduce neutrino oscillations and the planned measurement of the mixing angle and mass hierarchy at ${\rm NO}$ as well as its implications on neutrino physics.

We're a bit late with this blog post, but we're happy to announce that at the end of last year Authorea was awarded with the Digital Science Catalyst Grant and that we recently ended the program. Hooray! WHAT IS DIGITAL SCIENCE? Digital Science is an innnovative technology company, based in London UK, serving the needs of scientific research. Some software products developed at Digital Science include Figshare and Readcube. WHAT IS THE CATALYST GRANT PROGRAM? Digital Science offers every year grants to help researchers and scientists take ideas from concept to prototype. Think of the program as an incubator for early stage ideas. Along with funding, Digital Science also offers the opportunity to work with their team to refine and develop the innovation. The program runs for six months and funds can be used for any purpose that serves the project, including equipment purchases, software licensing, travel and reasonable living expenses. You can find out more on the grant homepage. WHAT DID AUTHOREA DO WITH THE CATALYST GRANT? Did you ever wish that a scientific article you are reading made available "the data behing a figure"? For example, you may be reading an article reporting data and predictions about the cost of publishing articles in open access journals and you may bump into the figure below (Beware, it's fictitious data!). Wouldn't it be nice if you could access the data associated with this figure as well as all the code that was utilized to make this graph? Yep, and luckily (thanks to the work we did under the Catalyst Grant) now you can!

Here’s my crux: I find myself criticizing over and over the way that scientific articles look today. I have said many times that scientists today write 21th-century research, using 20th-century tools, packaged in a 17th-century format. When I give talks, I often use 400-year-old-articles to demonstrate that they look and feel similar to the articles we publish today. But the scientific article of the 1600’s looked that way for a reason. This forthcoming article by explains: In the early 1600s, Galileo Galilei turned a telescope toward Jupiter. In his log book each night, he drew to-scale schematic diagrams of Jupiter and some oddly-moving points of light near it. Galileo labeled each drawing with the date. Eventually he used his observations to conclude that the Earth orbits the Sun, just as the four Galilean moons orbit Jupiter. History shows Galileo to be much more than an astronomical hero, though. His clear and careful record keeping and publication style not only let Galileo understand the Solar System, it continues to let anyone understand how Galileo did it. Galileo’s notes directly integrated his data (drawings of Jupiter and its moons), key metadata (timing of each observation, weather, telescope properties), and text (descriptions of methods, analysis, and conclusions). Critically, when Galileo included the information from those notes in Siderius Nuncius, this integration of text, data and metadata was preserved:

Are you comparing Google Docs vs Authorea?Choosing the right word processor for your documents is very important. While Google Docs and Authorea are similar in some ways, Google Docs is a great tool for writing general purpose drafts whereas Authorea is more appropriate if you are writing a scholarly manuscript, a student essay, a math heavy manuscript, a technical blog post, or a data-driven document. We listed here a few key comparison points that show how Google Docs and Authorea are different.