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.
« #ImpactFactor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions » via Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01759-5
Join us on 7/22 for a live discussion with Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub, on her experience building tools for the open science community
@OpenScienceDeutschland Auch interessant wie eine Forscherin aus Grünland den "horizontalen" Begutachtungsprozess der Literatur kontrastiert mit der "vertikalen" Begutachtung über Jahrhunderte von indigenes Wissen. Damit wäre post-publication Begutachtung 2-dimensional.
In the above podcast (in German) a researcher from Greenland contrasts the "horizontal" review of the literature to the "vertical" review over centuries of indigenous knowledge. This makes post-publication review 2D review.
The Decentralized Science Team has created "Quartz Open Access", a marketplace for peer-reviews and funding system for future independent Open Access journals.
Announcing the Single Source Publishing Community Launch!
A number of people working in the intersection between open-source publishign tech for scholarly publishing and Open Science have come together to advocate for Single Source Publishing. You can find out what's happening with this community over at its discussion board https://github.com/singlesourcepub/community/discussions and read a blogpost here https://github.com/singlesourcepub/community/wiki/Announcement-Bloghttps://preview.redd.it/x3mwy6pqws871.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=0af7274b2ebd54ff52b46d1de7e50e23e2140374
Solving the Crisis of Open Science and Editors with Blockchain based Journal and Rewards
From Journals to Communities
What it was like to be peer reviewed in the 1860s - https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.9098/full/
Opinion piece advocating for open identities. "Should we open the reviewing process."
I had not realized #OpenRepos2021 is also live streaming on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh4SPzHAl-N1dqPPlmHgEzw/videos
In 8 minutes a talk by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories on using #ActivityPub to connect manuscript repositories with peer review systems and journals. "
"Notify - The Repository and Services Interoperability Project"
The will exchange peer review status (not yet peer review reports). See also:
"The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation." Peer review is not perfect. As a climatologist I can imagine some dumb article abusing my work. It would be nice to be able to signal you disagree with being cited.
Do you like repository badges but don't like including them from someone else's server? Two days ago, I released ./badges - a generator for badges that you can download as a single, dependency-free, batteries-included binary (or build from source of course 😉). I have also published a number of generic badges under CC0. Check it out on @codeberg - https://codeberg.org/lhinderberger/dot-slash-badges #foss
Collusion Rings Threaten the Integrity of Computer Science Research https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/6/252840-collusion-rings-threaten-the-integrity-of-computer-science-research/fulltext
In computer science conference papers are like journal papers in most natural sciences; conferences are highly selective. (In the Earth Sciences basically everyone gets to present their work.)
Conference participants are also peer reviewers & can "bid" on paper that fit their profile. This is abused by groups bidding on each other's papers & giving a glowing review.
Reused Reviews: the CMEJ announces a new policy to recycle peer reviews. Authors are requested to submit the original manuscript, the answers to the reviewers and a document with tracked changes.
Shared technology needs for preprints.
Markup language conversion.
Linking from preprints to their journal version.
Support for preprint review.
Preprint server integration with review platforms.
Standardized review metadata.
1) Familiar product
We have many dreams what we could do with ActivityPub, but maybe rebuilding existing social media sites better is not a bad start.
2) Low barriers to contribution.
Server selection should be easier. Make servers for existing groups? Like the Discord servers of Twitch channels?
3) It deemphasized attribution and social ownership of content.
May generalize to other projects less.
4) Focused on content.
We have many apps. Focus more on inviting people? @Invite2Fedi 2/2
Before Wikipedia was created there were seven attempts to create English-language online collaborative encyclopedia projects. Why did Wikipedia win?
1 Wikipedia modelled a familiar product (encyclopedia).
2 Low barriers to contribution.
3 It deemphasized attribution and social ownership of content.
4 Focused on content, not on technology.
XP from birdsite
Seeing lots of these takes,and am totally sympathetic, but the issue surely is not reviewers, it's the awful business model of (most) academic publishing. Overstretched people are less and less willing to do free, invisible work for huge, profitable companies. Who can blame them?
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.