Strategies to Manage Unclear Peer Reviewer Comments. Good advice, but reviewers please write more clearly.
Jeroen Bosman (Utrecht University Library) made a comprehensive list with the information on peer review provided by databases on scientific journals such as DOAJ, Journal Citation Reports, Publons and Retraction Watch.
Trying to find resource again that lets authors do open peer review BEFORE submitting to journals
Interviews with 56 biomedical journal editors on communication with reviewers. Highlights: editors think reviewers prefer unstructured reviews, hardly give feedback for lack of time, do not expect reviewers to read the guidelines.
Do you know Octopus? A publishing platform for parts of articles: a hypothesis, a method, data, an analysis or a peer review.
The Confederation of #OpenAccess Repositories (COAR) calls for feedback on a communication protocol to connect repositories with independent peer review systems. #OverlayJournals
today, our Editorial got online where we start a pilot in the Journal of Cheminformatics on the use of the Citation Typing Ontology (CiTO). Read more here: https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-020-00448-1
Here to discover Masotondt and to promote a way of post-publication peer-review: you put your manuscript on an Open Archive (zenodo, OSFpreprints, bioRxiv etc.), you ask for our community to review it. We make a classic but fully open peer review (open review, open answers, open decisions) and if the work is good, we "recommend" it. It is therefore a quality article, citable, and if you need it, you can still publish it in a traditional journal. Everything FREE.
Do you already know Peer Community In ...? They mainly review preprints in the open before they are send to journals. Most communities are in the life sciences. @PeerCommunityIn
Meta-Research: Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports. Best predictor of review report tone is the recommendation. Area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact.
Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.
It is awesome that so many "learning projects" get #activitypub support, e.g.
That is useful. This information could also be gathered after publication by creating a database that is independent of journals, either as part of a Grassroots Review Journal, but preferably as an independent #OpenScience tool. https://medium.com/@ceptional/announcing-tenzing-ceca6789d88c
Webinar recording by the European Geophysical Union on their publishing system: Open Access, Open Pre-Publication Review Reports, Open Comments. (Invited reviewers can choose to remain anonymous.)
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.
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.