 Good morning Next presentation The it's good to be here again. We were artifacts was at this conference last year. We had just formally organized the the organization and Had yet yet to release a product It's wonderful to see that the progress that that the folks Here in the room today and many that aren't represented here have made in this made in this field We what I'm here today to really speak to is the future of indexing and secondary publishing and I have a colleague of mine Jason Rawlins whom some of you may may have already met and I'd encourage you to To catch up with Jason here over the course of today. We're also going to be at the work tending the workshop tomorrow and Thursday where we will be focusing on showing our products Both what's currently live what's in our near-term and medium-term? development roadmap So our vision where I'd where I'd really like to begin is is a reference And I'd like to also echo a theme that that your us and Alex began this morning and it has to do with recognition Eugene Garfield Quoting a Robert Merton the Merton description of normal science describes citations as the currency of science scientists make payments in the form of citations to their preceptors our Vision the artifacts vision is to change the outdated inefficient process of how researchers receive credit for their work breaking through existing delays and constraints Empowering researchers to collaborate in real time Share their work earlier in the process and get credit they deserve every step of the way advancing both their careers and Simultaneously advancing research So scholarly communications today the published article is principally the single format of discoverable research today Citations that are critical to discovery and research a reputation are formally recorded for only a subset of published articles in indexes that are deeply retrospective break-prone and inconsistent and Until artifacts arrived on the scene there is no mechanism for linking and associating Related and valuable research artifacts this inhibits discovery or research attribution cannot be formally received now those of you who are researchers and Who are tenured or pre-tenured? You all recognize that research researchers depend on and universities spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year for these limited indexing and attribution tools and While we know that researches that discovery is is a critical input to research and innovation worldwide Those same limited data sets those same limited indexes are relied upon for measuring performance determining determining hiring practices as Well as as well as tenure reviews Tim Berners Lee talks about has talked about all of the data That's merely sitting in scientists computers and currently not shared The Dora declaration good science is good science regardless of where it is published And we would cut we would add to that by saying regardless of whether it's published Because as we all know there's a great deal of valuable science and knowledge that is never published let alone indexed and As John has pointed out we're basically applying a 17th century communications format Here we are in 2018 Now the lack of change in everyone yesterday and probably throughout the rest of today will lament The slowness of change here, and this is not merely it's not just a technology problem This is a reputation recognition and attribution problem from the artifacts perspective So the model of scholarly communications that we like to begin with Moving from left to right a project begins Perhaps it's pre-funding some research is done a funding application is submitted funding is received The research begins the data the information the artifacts that researchers generate throughout that initial and continuing phase of their research Activities continues to build that knowledge then it begins to compress and it compresses into an article form factor and That further compresses in peer review because not all the manuscripts that are that are authored that are submitted are accepted for publication and There is delay in that acceptance Ultimately works are taken through peer review, and we're hopeful that blockchain applications such as Such as what yours and Alex walked through will begin to take hold in this arena, but ultimately these published works Only a minority of them are indexed Only 20% of the scientific technical medical publications are Are indexed 80% of that content Not being indexed makes it extremely difficult to find those resources let alone any of the artifacts that are associated with those publications So artifacts allows research outputs to be indexed and cited from the earliest stages of research Creating persistent link at persistent and linked chains of these transactions so in brief Everything is indexed in real time while research is underway with all artifacts linked and searchable Intellectual property is established and managed by the creator We very much respect the creator owner relationship of intellectual property and Transactions can occur there where intellectual intellectual property rights move certainly that's the case with a manuscript But it can also be the case with other artifacts that are generated throughout throughout the research effort Citations can be given at any point to research outputs at any time So we're breaking the barriers and the boundaries of only being able to cite an article only being able to cite a monograph Possibly cite a patent or essentially enabling citation Citations to be given to any type of research this facilitates we believe community sharing and We'll lower the barriers and the resistance and the fears and risks that as we learned earlier Early early stage of searchers are oftentimes Withholding information and that's a common behavior throughout most scientific disciplines And what we believe we're providing is transparent and consistent data set that creates the ability for new types of analytics and dimensionality to citations So for example today if Jason and I author a paper We submit it to the catalysis system It's process. It's published We're indexed Perhaps by one of the indexes that are widely used and And one of you picks up our research you conduct your work you eventually publish and our indexed You cite us now that may occur That citation May occur five seven years down the line We're pleased to receive a citation We have no idea why you've cited us and so the dimensionality here that we speak of is providing Contextual information metadata around a citation that illustrates or that describes the reason for the citation Is it a confirmation? It were were was the other party unable to reproduce results. It could be anything in between or beyond that Now the artifacts platform. We believe can begin to address it certainly Contribute to addressing many of the issues that are listed here whether it's certainly focused on reputation research integrity Peer review we believe we can we can facilitate and and complement Reproducibility definitely and data access, but here's the crux of the challenge in secondary publishing Right primary publishers are the parties that that publish the articles and the monographs Secondary publishing is the echo effect. It's the indexing of the research itself, right? Well, the fundamental problem in this in this field is that none of these if you think of these indexes as bank accounts None of these indexes agree none of the balances agree which one is correct. Why is it correct? Which should we use which does our institution require? Which would I prefer? I mean the numbers here are vastly different Google Scholar has nearly 68,000 citations Web of science has a couple of different numbers itself And that depends upon the content that is being viewed and used to accumulate those and measure those citations if this were your bank account and You received which bank would you rather go to? Right, we'd all rather go to Google here But if this were your bank account, it would make the entire system highly suspect So the artifacts research workflow platform, which is live and in the wild today. We released it in March of this year enables researchers and scientists to do three simple things Establish proof of existence authorship and confirm provenance at any time protect and manage intellectual property While concurrently and importantly we believe facilitating knowledge and content sharing To provide and receive valid breakproof attribution an assignment of credit at any point of research So not only are we enabling? Researchers to establish proof of existence proof of authorship, but we chain those Artifacts together if it is it if it is an artifact that evolves over time a data set a draft manuscript a Protocol etc Those modifications those version changes are chained together as well as the relationship of the set of artifacts They're involved that are associated with the overall research project So to make this happen now We need more than the perspective solution and the perspective solution is what we launched As a as an early-stage release in March, that's what I've been speaking of but let me turn attention to The added component that's necessary here what we call the retrospective system We've added an historical index here because when artifacts launched in March It began to accumulate users started using it it began to accumulate artifacts from live projects from live work That was being conducted and that content is Progressively building over time But we also know that scholars and scientists need to claw back need to reach back into the literature and the research Information that's available. So we know we knew we needed to add some historical content The historical research index that That we will bring forward that we're bringing forward it will be better than today's existing tools We're going to leverage the power of the community and provide systemic rigor That's required of an authoritative research solution and will maintain research support through Community ownership So we will use a token-based system that will bring unprecedented curatorial power here. So To model this out for you in terms of how the knowledge and how the information content builds over time This first view illustrates how the how the progressive index is Is is is building out content as? We add the historical index initially it comes in as an over 200 million record machine index data set Well, there are lots of machine index data sets out there, right? But the curatorial power that we will bring to bear here is that we will rely on the community to correct those flaws fill those gaps and Augment the historical record So if your name is misspelled in a publication if you're If there are is other if there are other errors in the bibliographic information if for example the indexing that had been done Didn't pick up four of your references because the indexer didn't also happen to index those publications All of this historical content can be improved to Be sure There are gaps even in the 20% of the literature that's indexed there are errors and flaws and gaps in that index furthermore the community of researchers we believe will then go back to their prior publications and Augment them with the research artifacts that are associated with them and we believe the reason they will do this the incentive for them to do this is That this added knowledge is going to enable them to improve their Ability to be recognized to be discovered to be credited and overall contribute to the success of their research careers So how does the system work and why will it work? It combines a token with a community Engaged in curation activities. So a token will be used as compensation for for curation Community member holds tokens for stake in a star in the historical index and they're able to spend it on Services and that's not a that's not a one-for-one trade-off the stake that researchers that the community Creates for themselves in building that historical index will continue to grow over time and Give them governance rights an authority over that historical index and ultimately ownership the structure that we're that we're applying here for that ownership is to Create is to imbue a public benefit corporation with these tokens So many of you would know the company Patagonia Patagonia is structured as a PBC a public benefits corporation and that enables a nice hybrid of a If you will a commercial entity to engage actively in commercial in in public good Not only will we give the community rights and ownership over this historical index, but artifacts will Feed proceeds back to the research community in the form of funding that this community Governing the allocation of those funds will be able to allocate to research Not that we're anticipating becoming the next National Institutes of Health that annually funds 32 billion a year in Research, but we do want to make sure we find a way to give back to the community and that's the vehicle so the community The community recognition for curating levels and expertise and quality There will be challenges and quests as I referred to earlier. There are gaps and errors and flaws in the historical index My colleagues and I Jason and I have worked for many years building those indexes and we're quite familiar with where They are and we know where to point the research community to make further improvements and enhancements in an important point here in the trailer is that We're not the first to ask researchers to contribute to building something Particularly in the area of indexes and archives But in the past they receive nothing tangible for this effort Perhaps other than personal gratification And they ultimately own nothing here. They will receive incentives recognition and own what they build so The the ecosystem here that I'm illustrating Our concept is and our vision is to coexist within the existing Research and development ecosystem. We're realists We respect open science We also respect that there is an extremely mature and diverse set of stakeholders that Facilitate both the funding of science the creation of science and the communication of science and we believe it's incumbent upon us to operate and and to play nice with with all stakeholders our Intention is to live in the researchers work flowing and engage with trusted enterprises. So I'm hopeful that maybe perhaps not as soon as this conference next year But in the near future We won't be talking about blockchain applications, you know the subtitle of my talk won't be a blockchain approach It will be how we live in the researchers workflow and facilitate in advance their research their career goals So I've spoken about the researchers a bit the bottom comment the lower circle in the lower left I think is important because that illustrates our intention to Integrate and interoperate in the tools and applications that researchers are using so that artifacts is operating in the background in the future you won't even have to know that artifacts is there if you're in an electronic lab notebook and Where where where your labs at data are all being compiled and so forth We'll provide a plug-in. We'll provide an API or work with that that third party's application so that Proof of existence proof of creation citations given and such can operate as Researchers are using the tools that their customary at a customary in their in their daily workflow, but also importantly Beyond the index that we're building and the expansion of knowledge that we believe it will deliver It's incumbent on us to interoperate With all of the key stakeholders whether they're funding organizations universities publishers corporate R&D organizations and Societies and certainly the open community as a co-founder of orchid. I'm I'm Extremely pleased to hear Rob's presentation yesterday and hear the progress that they've that they've made There's much more to do there. I think I think we all recognize that it's It's also nice to be able to also say that you know the the persistent identifiers that Rob spoke of yesterday Artifacts is in a position to support those They're machine readable and they are persistent and and supporting that pit infrastructure is valuable Not only for the open community. It's valuable for research broadly This is just a bit on our timeline We're we're pleased with our progress and we're we're also Frustrated as any developer as any new developer would be on the time that it takes to actually bring product and evolve product to market And the points that yours made earlier about legal legal complications and constraints certainly compounds the challenge in this market We're extremely pleased to have University of Saskatchewan as our first academic partner that's standing up a node for for artifacts they will become an important both research partner and And entrusted node in supporting our system our co-founders are listed here across the top our advisors across the bottom and And again Jason Rollins who drives our product development efforts very pleased to be here today our vision You've seen this before with the exception of the Final point at the bottom. We want to let scientists Do science? Thank you So we have a few minutes for questions this one Thank you for the nice presentation as a science communication professional I remembered my article from 2014 published in Genome biology and it is mentioning a Kardashian index for scientists who are at the social media and I dissecting The social the scientific results to the public Can that be an artifact can that be part of artifact that? Yeah, the platform what scientists actually share with the society Can a museum exhibit with the expertise of a scientist be part of the artifacts so so Clarify again what the specific artifact there is What is the artifact there? Yes Yes, yes, so I think that the simplest way to think of artifacts is that any digital representation can become an artifact and If it's sightable Whether it's sighted or not it certainly can become an artifact. So if it's a blog comment Yes, although I'd have to say that our focus here is around is around enabling citations to Citable materials so any type of any type of contribution that researcher makes That is in digital form certainly can become an artifact. Yes, it's okay That's an interesting thing and you do you have any plans to? Influence like what will be an artifact like in terms of like the size or I mean a tweet can like contain a great idea or Like a one-shot picture of like a new finding can be like very important Like other things can be very long and unimportant. So and you have you have it now in your hand to influence its culture, right? Well, yes, I think Influence is is a yes. I think we're in a position to influence. I think we're very much going first of all There is no restriction in terms of file size Or the type of information content and I should also point out that artifacts never takes possession or control of the content We certainly have a facility where researchers can can store content But we interface with commonly used Commonly used resources dropbox github and others and what we and in a corporate r&d setting We would certainly engage with with any private storage facilities. We don't take control and ownership of the artifact We can influence this process, but we're very much going to turn those types of questions back to the research community and Specifically the scientometric community to help us it help us determine I speak of contextually relevant citations Well, we have our ideas as to what context should be should that a citation should be should be incorporated in a citation But we don't we don't want to be the party to try to unilaterally push our views on the research community That needs to emerge from the community itself So that's a great example of if it is a citable item We want the scientometric bibliometric community to help us work through the the metadata Requirements for contextual relevance if that addresses your question. Yeah, yeah Thank you for the very interesting talk Dave I had a question you said the University of Saskatchewan is has the first trusted node for university partner Can you elaborate a little bit on the blockchain technology you're using is it a permissions aetherium blockchain or what exactly is it sure sure so We're we're in a We're betwixt in between we're in the process of migrating so when we initially stood artifacts up stood the You know released the product in March We were using we were using an off-chain variant of aetherium and Transactions were recorded and and able to be viewed through Rob Sten now That was basically a test environment for us to have something that was up and working We had a we have a product we had a project workspace to be able to accumulate artifacts or be able to associate artifacts To give and receive attribution and so forth We're in the process now of in the next sprint or to probably the second sprint from where we sit today That we won in mark or there will be one in November and one Probably six weeks down the road. We're in the process of migrating to hyper ledger sawtooth Now in terms of nodes these are permissioned nodes So we envision having some n number of permissioned nodes that support this ecosystem We our preference is to have representation from the key types of stakeholder organizations Again universities as we start with Saskatchewan funding organizations Publishers certainly Societies and and the open and the open community. So it will be a permissioned node system and there are several reasons for that Maybe the two to highlight are the economics It's a it's very cost-effective with the kind with the volume of transactions that this system over time needs to scale to It will be very cost-effective to take that approach Secondly, it's important for us to engage with the organizations that house or directly support the researchers Whom we want to use a system. So whether they're funders whether the universities all of those stakeholder organizations We believe that adopt standing up a node as trusted parties We'll have an incentive to encourage their their communities to use the system if that answers your question Sure. So and we have one last question here I'm really sorry about this. I'm really curious about your name artifacts because in physics and the natural sciences and Insignal processing artifacts are actually an error. You've seen your experiments. It does not exist So when you sending a paper, maybe you have an image and you say, oh, this is like the greatest thing in the world Mm-hmm, and it's actually a piece of dust. We call that an artifact And so I'm actually quite curious about your name generation here because um, yes um That's an interesting fact that we were we were perhaps not aware of the the derivation of the name art from the social sciences humanities set of disciplines art and Facts from if you will the hard sciences sciences So it's an attempt to be supportive across all disciplinary fields and such. Thank you for that comment Alright, thanks