GitHub for scientific works

Would you recommend this product?
No reviews yet
There's a feature that offers the ability to search and cite works as part of the paper - an auto-bibliography; very cool.
Clever. Helping scientists collaborate on and publish research papers.
I have some relevant background here: scientific research for the Australian Federal Government, working collaboratively with other researchers on multiple government and commercially funded projects. I love the idea of the open science movement. Authorea and Plos One and the whole suite of open science changes are really helping to bring science forward. Technically the product looks sound, and I generally love Github For X type of products. -- I think the collaborative manuscript writing pitch is great, it looks like it is well implemented, and it makes a lot of sense as to how scientists work together all the time. I love this. Speaking to the "github for science" side of things, there are some issues to note regarding collaborative scientific data and the way in which scientists actually work: Scientists (or at least the scientific community as a system) are generally very reluctant to share data, and it is not because of a lack of tools. It is because of the competitive nature of research, the way research is funded, and the processes that surround scientific research and outcomes. This is a very different situation to OSS. In science there are many constraints on data sharing, and this occurs at the systems level, not at the tools level. What this means is that definitely yes, this tool will be excellent for coauthors to collaborate on a manuscript. It should work well and make that process more efficient. The much bigger challenge beyond that is the leap required to get to "github for science" and open data sharing. Services like Authorea are the beginning of those bigger changes, and hopefully we will see a more collaborative, open science community as we progress.