3 ms·

Not sure that user generated review comments are a good idea - it would be to hard to convince people (me included), that they'd be a good replacement for peer-

Not sure that user generated review comments are a good idea - it would be to hard to convince people (me included), that they'd be a good replacement for peer-review. You don't know the user's expertise, you have no guarantee that they have read the paper. Granted that last one is sometimes not true in real world publishing either - but at least the social pressure is there. It could also lead to gaming, asking your colleagues to give good reviews, or worse, companies that are paid to write good reviews, same as what has happened with Amazon etc. Academia is largely a social construct, that's why it's hard to replace with 100% technology.

eecc 8y ago
Well the UGC I was thinking of is like http://www.openannotation.org http://www.openannotation.org mainly used to link to other papers and/or comment of draft papers. Also simple “Reviewed” tags, and other classification items. Since any derived data would be signed and linked to the identity of its author a default filter removes anything that is not transitively included in your academic network. Reviewed articles would just be “review count > N and reviewers in fieldNet”