Grassroots Review Journals assess the quality of scientific articles & finished manuscripts. Because we only review, we are not limited by copy rights & people do not have to submit their articles to us for it to work.
We aim to be a valuable entry into the literature & to destroy the power of the publishers.
We need coders, editors & messengers.
Join the LIBER Europe Working Group & Support Libraries in Innovative Peer Review.
OPERAS has started a Certification Service for the peer review of Open Access books. Could this also be an idea to open the peer review black box for (Open Access) journals? That could end predatory journals.
The Dutch Science Foundation #NWO publishes a lists of their Open Science Infrastructure Support. Wonderful. Any other science foundations doing this? @NWOnieuws
Working Scientist podcast: How to bounce back from a bruising peer-review or paper rejection
Re-evaluation of solutions to the problem of unprofessionalism in peer review. Analysis of the social media response to an article on unprofessional review reports. In which Facebook is again way more toxic than Twitter and Reddit.
"Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem" Most citations to retracted articles were made before retraction. There are nearly no studies on how much these citing articles are impacted. Do we need a warning system for citing articles? #OpenCitations
Why I chose a copyleft free license for the Grassroots Journals. The publishing industry will loose a few billions of the 10 billion a year they have in revenue.
Cory Doctorow: "a Ulysses Pact, named for the passage in the Odyssey in which Ulysses pilots his ship through the sirens' sea, ... protecting himself by lashing himself to the mast...
Tech was built on a Ulysses Pact: the irrevocable free software license: once a hacker applies the GPL, they can't unchoose it." https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/105736411221279740
Publishing peer review materials. Technical article on how to represent the different versions and formats of peer review reports in the JATS and Crossref data models.
@VGM Nice to see an IP lawyer here.
The peer review reports of the Grassroots review system should be exchanged between servers, like Mastodon exchanges posts.
So censorious governments could set up servers that only contain the peer reviews that are politically inconvenient.
Is there a way to force such countries to distribute all peer review reports?
So that when the system succeeds they will have to choose between science and censorship.
Grassroots Review Journals is an initiative to support specialised and open review journals, which review articles from traditional journals. You can follow at:
You can find out more on the official site at https://grassroots.is
Discussion on the openness of the review process continues in #academia. It is unarguably true that there are both advantages as well as challenges in the open review process. Our experiences at HHBIC highlight the positive side.
Climatology synthesizes its understanding of climate change every 5 to 7 years in a new #IPCC report. A new one is about to be published.
This is a model I wish more sciences would adopt. I would be really curious how the consensus of economists compares to TV economists.
The life sciences have a established very structured systematic peer reviews of well delimited questions: #Cochrane Reviews
This editorial calls on climate science to also make such #SystemicReviews. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1128
TIL: There is a Database with Librarians who are willing to do Peer Reviewer of Systematic Reviews. Many librarians are happy to help review how the literature search was made, but few editors ask librarians.
As new venues for peer review flower, will journals catch up? Alex Holcombe on interesting recent projects on open review and making review reports into a citable part of the scientific literature.
This month major publishers (Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis, IEEE, APA, Elsevier, eLife, and MIT Press) will start implementing the (Open) Peer Review Taxonomy of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM).
Webinar by Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) on Developmental Open Peer Review where authors and reviewers closely collaborate. Emily Ford, Wendi Arant Kaspar, Daniel C. Mack and Zoe Wake Hyde.
#rC3 #rc3bitwaescherei What the Butterfy system seems to be missing is categories (people have different interests at different times) & "diversity" (someone interested in tech, should still get the most important on politics; even I should know who won the world cup).
Ultimately rich people decide what was the valuable content. So the system in the end caters to their interests. (That is an argument to force them to start at stage 1; although they may also pay people to do that for them.)
At #rC3 channel #rc3bitwaescherei there was a discussion on a new media system focused on quality/transformative content.
The system is called Butterfy. https://www.butterfy.me
People create & filter content. They are rewarded for both. There are 4 stages, the people reading the top two stages pay the people filtering, creating & the platform.
Everyone starts filtering at the lowest level. I would expect that removes many people willing to pay for the highest levels.
Let's bring the quality control of scientific articles back to the scientific community with open post-publication peer review independent of scientific journals
Fediscience is the social network for scientists.