Genuine Semantic Publishing

Tracking #: 490-1470


Responsible editor: 

Silvio Peroni

Submission Type: 

Position Paper


Several approaches and systems have been presented for what has been called semantic publishing. Closer inspection, however, reveals that these approaches are mostly not about publishing semantic representations, as the name seems to suggest. Rather, most approaches take the processes and outcomes of the current narrative-based publishing system for granted and only work with the already published papers. This includes semantic annotations, semantic interlinking, semantic integration, and semantic discovery, but with the semantics coming into play only after the publication of the original article. While these are interesting approaches, they fall short of providing a vision to transcend the current publishing paradigm. We argue for taking the term semantic publishing literally and work towards a vision of genuine semantic publishing, where computational tools and algorithms can help us with dealing with the wealth of human knowledge by letting researchers capture their research results with formal semantics from the start. We argue that genuine semantic publications should come with formal semantics as an integral and primary component at the time of publication, that these representations should have essential coverage in the sense that they cover the main results, that they should be authentic in the sense that they originate from the authors, and that they should be fine-grained and light-weight for optimized re-usability and minimized publication overhead. This paper is in fact not just advocating our concept, but is itself a genuine semantic publication, thereby demonstrating and illustrating our points.


Revised Version:


  • Reviewed

Data repository URLs: 

Date of Submission: 

Friday, June 16, 2017

Date of Decision: 

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Nanopublication URLs:



Solicited Reviews:

1 Comment

Meta-Review by Editor

Overall, according to the reviewers, this is a good paper and and it is very appropriate for the journal. All the reviews provide several suggestions for improving the paper in all its parts.

However, Reviewer 3 has highlighted some issues that should be addressed carefully. In particular, some claims in the paper should be clarified and supported with additional evidences.

I'm pretty sure these aspects will be addressed by the authors appropriately, but this will need a new revision. That's why the current decision is "Undecided".

Silvio Peroni (