powering the next generation of scholarly manuscript
The Manubot project began with the [Deep Review](https://github.com/greenelab/deep-review),
where it was used to compose a highly-collaborative review article [@doi:10.1101/142760].
Other manuscripts that were created with Manubot include:
+ The Sci-Hub Coverage Study
([GitHub](https://github.com/greenelab/scihub-manuscript), [HTML manuscript](https://greenelab.github.io/scihub-manuscript/))
[@doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100]
+ Michael Zietz's Report for the Vagelos Scholars Program
([GitHub](https://github.com/zietzm/Vagelos2017), [HTML manuscript](https://zietzm.github.io/Vagelos2017/))
[@doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.5346577]
The Manubot project began with the Deep Review, where it was used to compose a highly-collaborative review article [1]. Other manuscripts that were created with Manubot include:
1. Opportunities And Obstacles For Deep Learning In Biology And Medicine
Travers Ching, Daniel S. Himmelstein, Brett K. Beaulieu-Jones, Alexandr A. Kalinin, Brian T. Do, Gregory P. Way, Enrico Ferrero, Paul-Michael Agapow, Wei Xie, Gail L. Rosen, … Casey S. Greene
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (2017-05-28) https://doi.org/10.1101/142760
2. Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature
Daniel S Himmelstein, Ariel R Romero, Stephen R McLaughlin, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Casey S Greene
PeerJ Preprints (2017-07-20) https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100
3. Vagelos Report Summer 2017
Michael Zietz
Figshare (2017) https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5346577
Write markdown
Automatically converted to rich text
Automatic bibliographic metadata
[@doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100]
[@arxiv:1407.3561v1]
[@pmid:24159271]
[@url:http://blog.dhimmel.com/biorxiv-licenses/]
1. Modify the manuscript source
2. Continuous integration rebuilds the manuscript
Timestamped on the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps
3. Continuous deployment back to GitHub
Pull requests for manuscript collaboration
Get started at tiny.cc/manubot
https://github.com/greenelab/manubot-rootstock
Impact
Technicalities
“Finally, we estimate that over a six-month period in 2015–2016, Sci-Hub provided access for 99.3% of valid incoming requests.”
— DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v1
“In the first version of this study, we mistakenly treated the log events as requests rather than downloads. Fortunately, Sci-Hub reviewed the preprint in a series of tweets, and pointed out the error…”
— DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2
The Deep Review