The case / Part 5 of 5
What am I missing?
The questions I most want answered, from people who do the work.
I'm testing whether this fits the field, and the people who do the work are the ones who can tell me.
For lab heads and students
- Which of these pain points costs your lab the most time? Which did I miss?
- Which subfield would be most open to trying this first?
- Where does your data live today, and which tools write it?
- If logging were nearly automatic, would it still be a burden?
- Would you run an assistant like this on your paper before submitting? What would it need to catch to be worth it?
- Would you trust a third-party service with your raw data, if only the assistant reads it? What would it need to promise?
For journals and funders
- Would you offer the assistant to your authors and referees? What would it need to cost per paper?
- Would a view of what the field is working on, and where nobody is investing, help you decide what to fund?
- As a referee, would you trust the assistant's report and the researcher's answers?
- Who should host a shared system of record for this field?
- Who should curate the field's data, such as a library of known lookalikes? Could journals take that on?
For everyone
- Which step would you adopt tomorrow, and which would you fight?
- What result would make your journal, funder or department pay attention?
- What's wrong or missing here?
How I plan to test each guess is in the appendix.
Write to me at david@sendorai.com.