While the scientonomic workflow guiding the development of a general theory of scientific change has been practiced for nearly four years, it has yet to be formally evaluated. The goal of this paper is to fill this gap with a critical appraisal of the practice and theoretical underpinnings of the workflow currently used in scientonomy. First, we consider the traditional workflow which uses publications as the primary vehicle for substantive epistemic change and find that it fails to be sufficiently transparent or inclusive and is ambiguous at decisive points. Conversely, as we argue, the scientonomic workflow has the potential to succeed where the traditional workflow fails and thus provides a promising alternative workflow. We then go on to note a number of practical and theoretical problems that have arisen upon reflection on the scientonomic workflow and suggest some modifications to the workflow and to our practices. This paper takes the first steps in improving the workflow to reach its maximum potential.
Suggested Modifications
[Sciento-2019-0001]: Accept that the goal of peer-reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.
[Sciento-2019-0002]: Accept that the discussions concerning a suggested modification are to be published once a communal verdict is available. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections.
[Sciento-2019-0003]: Accept that the commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations.
Also accept that, by default, the new formulation should bear the original author’s name, unless the author decides to give credit to those who significantly contributed to the new reformulation. This should be decided collegially by the author, the commentators, and the editors on a case-by-case basis.
[Sciento-2019-0004]: Accept that an annual book prize is to be offered for extensive participation on the encyclopedia. The winner(s) are to be decided by the encyclopedia editors.
[Sciento-2019-0005]: Accept that star-ratings are to be introduced for commentators who comment on suggested modifications on the encyclopedia.
[Sciento-2019-0006]: Accept that the encyclopedia editors are to be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects.
Also accept that if the additional required changes are implicit in the suggested modification, the editors should create and alter encyclopedia pages to ensure that the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge is properly documented; if it is conceivable to accept the modification without accepting the ripple effect change in question, the editors should register these changes as new suggested modifications so that the community can discuss and evaluate them in an orderly fashion.
[Sciento-2019-0007]: Accept that the verdict on suggested modifications is to be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period.
Have a communal discussion and decide as to what percentage of votes it should take for a modification to be accepted – a simple majority (50% +1), or supermajority of three fifths (60%), two thirds (67%), or three quarters (75%). Also discuss to decide as to how long the discussion period and the voting period should be.
This modification is incompatible with modification [Sciento-2019-0008].
[Sciento-2019-0008]: Accept that a countdown mechanism is to be introduced, where a modification is accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication.
This modification is incompatible with modification [Sciento-2019-0007].
The ‘ripple effect’ of schedule control: a social network approach