Some other important comments:

ZW on telegram: “The public can vote according to their will. There will be a balance between the professional peer-reviewers and the public.” A very interesting message from him that highlights one of the advantages of the Etica protocol.

“Since I mentioned the use of language, I will briefly explain it. In professional research article, any exaggeration, unnecessary adjectives are strictly prohibitied. Any results or discussions are stated plainly in a serious tone as facts in order to look professional.” added by ZW

“For a follow-up study (This is different from the initial proposal). We expect results to be published at least partially. On ETICA, the sharing of open-source research data and results is its goal. If no experiment is perfomed, and no results published. How do we evaluate the effectiveness of the follow-up study? It adds no value to the blockchain. The study is therefore better terminated.”

“The demonstration of research progress is key for the continuation of follow-up studies. Without any mention of the experimental setup, its partial results, there is no way for the reviewer to judge the quality of research nor its feasibility.”

“Eventually, ETICA need to surpass this level of quality. AND also provide open access to results. Not saying it has to reach this level now. But needs to at least show some effort. Having absolutely no results is not great”

“Decoding Research: Navigating the Landscape of Scientific Publications”

First of all: Thank you @zyxtina on Discord and telegram, or Cris for writing this.

Here we go a good start – # Guide to Scientific Publications

Introduction

Welcome to the world of scientific publications! This document serves as a comprehensive guide to the diverse range of scientific publication types, intended for a technically adept audience eager to understand and possibly contribute to the field of scientific research. The aim is to demystify the formats, purposes, and processes of different publications, making the realm of scientific discourse more accessible and engaging.

Types of Scientific Publications

1. Original Research Articles

These are detailed reports presenting original and novel findings. They are fundamental to the progression of science, allowing researchers to share new insights and discoveries. Typically, they include sections such as introduction, methodology, results, and discussion.

2. Review Articles

Review articles provide a summarization and critical evaluation of existing literature on a specific topic. They synthesize findings from various studies, offering a comprehensive overview and understanding of the area of research.

3. Short Communications

Short communications are brief descriptions of significant current research findings. They are quicker to publish than full research articles, allowing researchers to disseminate important results promptly.

4. Case Reports

Case reports detail specific instances of interesting or rare occurrences in a clinical or research setting. They are valuable in medical fields as they can unveil new types of diseases, treatment outcomes, or rare findings.

5. Letters and Commentaries

Letters are short descriptions of research findings or critical comments on published articles. Commentaries are usually opinion pieces written by senior researchers discussing the implications of a specific study or topic.

6. Conference Proceedings

These are collections of papers or posters presented at academic conferences. They include cutting-edge research and are often the first place new research is publicly presented.

7. Technical Reports

Produced mainly by governmental agencies or specific institutions, technical reports detail the progress or results of scientific or technical research and are often not subject to peer review.

8. Theses and Dissertations

These are detailed documents submitted in pursuit of an academic degree, representing the author’s research and findings in their field of study.

Conclusion

This guide is intended to be a dynamic resource, evolving with contributions from the community to stay relevant and up-to-date. Understanding the landscape of scientific publications not only aids in consuming scientific content but also empowers individuals to contribute effectively to the expanding body of knowledge. Whether you’re a novice reader, an aspiring researcher, or a seasoned scientist, grasping the nuances of these publications is key to navigating the vast sea of scientific information. // thank you ChimiaResearch GPT needs much more but at least a start, I need to sleep, have a lovely day or night, everyone

Posted by Kevin Wad: 0xFcCD0af3446C1E847d57920Ec96b17b12b6648AD the funds should be sent to a community adress.

Etica promotion and development fund

This adress owned by @chinecracy https://www.eticascan.org/address/0xE1235ef4d15812B65d8C9b86495180F684A8EB56

“In addition to the community donations, I am proposing that we use ETIP to generate additional fund for Etica promotion. Obviously if this proposal is accepted all the reward will be donated to the marketing fund”

Etica Community Paper

Posted by Geistluchs: https://etica.io/app/main/proposal?proposalhash=0x5592e0f7bb93e9a5f46de9af71d5c4cc6ab3d4b293ebf171f3eb143f30ab2d59

“I want to post the community paper for transparency purposes. It will now always be available on the IFPS network and accessible from Etica.io”

In a way, Etica will become a “proof of research” model since all new inflation will gradually lower the reward for miners and researchers more and more. This is why it is essential to vote in an intelligent way if we want great things to be accomplished with the Etica Protocol.

From Kevin W: “

Remember when voting on proposals you have 2 incentives as a Etica holder.

On the one hand there is an incentive to accept best proposals because this is what brings value to the protocol.

But on the other hand there is also an incentive to reject proposals that are not result of a minimum effort and hard work. In fact otherwise, people that submit such proposals with low effort will dump the coin as soon as they get it because it was easy money or effortless money.
The voters of the network have a responsibility to not hesitate to reject proposals. If getting a proposal accepted is too easy then it creates a door to mint ETI easily and there is no incentive to mine neither, why spend energy on what others can get with no effort.

So keep this in mind, the protocol should not be afraid to be ruthless with proposals, the harder it is the more work people will put in their proposals submissions. The protocol doesn’t need to accept all proposals nor the majoritiy of proposals.

The community can reject most proposals until quality meets its demand. If Etica becomes very selective, this will increase what we call the impact factor on the long term and publishing on Etica could become even more imprtant for researchers than publishing on notorious journals. Because journals have 3 max reviewers while Etica will have thousands or hundred thousands reviewers.”

Open-source science is a collaborative, and interdisciplinary approach to research, promoting transparency, access to information, reproducibility, and the open sharing of data while fostering the development of open communities, citizen science participation, open-source software utilization, and open-access publishing, all with a strong emphasis on ethical considerations, global impact, and the democratization of scientific knowledge.

Etica voting guidelines:

The purpose of peer review is to act as a filter to ensure research is properly verified before being approved, and thus who will be receiving funds, the goal being to improve the quality of research and the impact of Etica.

First question: Is the person submitting the proposal the author of the work? Etica is all about open science, but plagiarized papers should not receive funds, especially if they don’t reward the original author. This lowers the value of coins being distributed since they don’t have a real impact.

Some questions to ask yourself before voting:

• Who submitted the proposal? (Ultimately the person getting rewarded)
  • Are they the author?
  • Is the person submitting also an (co)author
  • Is it a group? A DAO? An individual?…
• When was it done/when is it planned to be done?
  • Is there a follow-up, when?
• How will the funds be used?

Question when reading the proposal:

• Research Significance:
  • Is the research question significant to the scientific community?
  • Is the paper original, contributing to knowledge?
• Citations:
  • Are the citations comprehensive and properly credited?
• Methodology:
  • Is the experimental design appropriate?
  • Is data collection well-explained?
  • Can others replicate the research?
  • Were sampling and materials described adequately?
• Ethical Considerations:
  • Is ethical approval obtained when required?
  • Is patient consent and anonymization ensured?
  • Are local ethical committees or standards followed?
  • For animal experiments, are relevant care and use laws adhered to?

Other questions to ask yourself:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Potential conflicts of interest

You should not care about style, grammar or spelling unless it makes the paper confusing. Is the paper easy to understand, simple language to make it easy to understand, but with expertise.

Don’t forget to reveal your vote to not lose staked ETIs. Let me know if you want to add anything on this.

Like always: This text is free to get copied – Open Source

Donation Website adresses. These are donation adresses used to help support Etica team. Controlled by Kevin Wad.

Monero: 481ok2WQNNeDSQRb2ymwNGZN1XRBkntUQTDbwbw9Fqr2H3G7fj5hpWDBZKYcEkPd7WAQ3x9MhAFNK6oQgBCUnNcNU3NwJry
Etica: 0x6eD2EaCB37f6af0c7AC027C3b244602CA0cA5123

Launch community ETI tokens:

The problem was due to the low initial complexity of ETI so the the difficult but the right decision was made to run a blockchain, but only after 2 days publish the ETI smart contract. 150 thousand ETI were mined for these 2 days to the following wallets:
0x7767229c334D128cb956ef08E4580756b1753121 : 29 090.72951 ETI
0x224E307b688A815b8f03Db5de94AC7FC206CF35B : 17 222.17753 ETI
Oxd4763DA49A60E296Ed199C4Ab7D0d8a3a889eA5E : 104 100.94183 ETI

Kevin Wad has the keys to these wallets and these ETI belong to the community – for future listings and for the development of the protocol.

Donation For exchange listing:

Exchange Donations Wallet
Check explorer ETI/EGAZ: 0x92393571Cf5BA9d7900d50Bc595f03423f6560BE
Check explorer ETH: 0x92393571Cf5BA9d7900d50Bc595f03423f6560BE
Check explorer USDT: 0x92393571Cf5BA9d7900d50Bc595f03423f6560BE
Check explorer BTC: bc1qpcgpsuquwfky0lv4rtem76y6jav39jhr7pxf2w

Marketing Fund:

There is a marketing fund adress that is used.

0x2eFe3D6Ca8E62AEeD5EBAF577D596E59a9E78d50

Controlled by Simon @chinecracy on Telegram

Desci World:

0xBf18c891f47B98080740efe4c4689BC5E1C29175

Here is the link to the DeSciWorld’s full announcement: https://twitter.com/DeSciWorld/status/1685709927367503872

DeSciWorld is doing a significant work for DeSci. It has reached to all Desci projects and gave them a medium to speak and exchange ideas beyond the projects boundaries. This work is extremely important for the present and future of Desci.If Etica is to become the crypto currency of Desci and open source research, it is a necessary and normal step to welcome DesciWorld and enable them to become part of the Etica ecosystem. They don’t have miners to mine ETI or EGAZ but they spent a lot of energy building and helping DeSci community and they deserve our attention and consideration because one day Etica will benefit from their work to build and help Desci.