Thread

My key takeaways similar to yours: User-Centered Design in Academic Systems "Academics from within the discipline should be included in the design process, so that the system fits their patterns of work, and conceptual categories, rather than being imposed based on some alien categorical scheme." — James Boyle, "Mertonianism Unbound? Imagining Free, Decentralized Access to Most Cultural and Scientific Material" This principle extends beyond academics. For MedSchlr to truly serve as a knowledge commons, we must involve a range of users—including the public and the Nostr community—in co-creating features that meet their needs for accessing, understanding, and engaging with health research. Open Architecture as Innovation Engine "Wherever possible, design the system to run with open content, on open protocols, to be potentially available to the largest possible number of users, and to accept the widest possible range of experimental modifications from users who can themselves determine the development of the technology. Then sit back and wait to see what emerges." — James Boyle (citing Eric Von Hippel's work on user-based innovation) This collaborative approach—combining open access with decentralized protocols—challenges us to question the centralized architecture of existing structures and guides our development philosophy for MedSchlr.

Replies (1)

So one initial question we may explore in our team research could be: So makes me think for the Research abstract submission we discussed at the team meeting, one possible literature scoping review question that could be examined is: What evidence exists regarding stakeholder participation (academics, clinicians, patients, and public) in the design, governance, and feature development of health and medical scientific repositories?