Co-designing a wiki-based community knowledge management system for personal science.

Personal science is the practice of addressing personally relevant health questions through self-research. Implementing personal science can be challenging, owing to the need to develop and adopt research protocols, tools and methods. While online communities can provide valuable peer support, tools for systematically accessing community knowledge are lacking. The objective of this study is to apply a participatory design process involving a community of personal science practitioners to develop a peer-produced knowledge base that supports the needs of practitioners as consumers and contributors of knowledge. The process led to the development of the Personal Science Wiki, an open repository for documenting and accessing individual self-tracking projects while facilitating the establishment of consensus knowledge. After initial design iterations and a field testing phase, we performed a user study with 21 participants to test and improve the platform, and to explore suitable information architectures. The study deepened our understanding of barriers to scaling the personal science community, established an infrastructure for knowledge management actively used by the community and provided lessons on challenges, information needs, representations and architectures to support individuals with their personal health inquiries.

Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.

Resource allocation is essential to selection and implementation of innovative projects in science and technology. Current "winner-take-all" models for grant applications require significant researcher time in writing extensive project proposals, and rely on the availability of a few time-saturated volunteer experts. Such processes usually carry over several months, resulting in high effective costs compared to expected benefits. We devised an agile "community review" system to allocate micro-grants for the fast prototyping of innovative solutions. Here we describe and evaluate the implementation of this community review across 147 projects from the "Just One Giant Lab's OpenCOVID19 initiative" and "Helpful Engineering" open research communities. The community review process uses granular review forms and requires the participation of grant applicants in the review process. Within a year, we organised 7 rounds of review, resulting in 614 reviews from 201 reviewers, and the attribution of 48 micro-grants of up to 4,000 euros. The system is fast, with a median process duration of 10 days, scalable, with a median of 4 reviewers per project independent of the total number of projects, and fair, with project rankings highly preserved after the synthetic removal of reviewers. Regarding potential bias introduced by involving applicants in the process, we find that review scores from both applicants and non-applicants have a similar correlation of r=0.28 with other reviews within a project, matching traditional approaches. Finally, we find that the ability of projects to apply to several rounds allows to foster the further implementation of successful early prototypes, as well as provide a pathway to constructively improve an initially failing proposal in an agile manner. Overall, this study quantitatively highlights the benefits of a frugal, community review system acting as a due diligence for rapid and agile resource allocation in open research and innovation programs, with implications for decentralised communities.