4 ms·

I wonder if there would be a credible way to crowdsource editorial work. Have a journal that anybody can submit to as long as it is reviewed by 5 verifiable pee

by sgc 5y ago

I wonder if there would be a credible way to crowdsource editorial work. Have a journal that anybody can submit to as long as it is reviewed by 5 verifiable peers, or 3 who themselves reach a certain level of credibility (or some other better, similar system). Reviewers would need to accept to basic communications with the journal for verification both of their review and their credentials. Reviewers who continuously approved poorly received articles would need to be dealt with, but it seems like it could maybe work more generally, and would be relatively easy (although less desirable) for more restricted groups (like limiting participants to a certain group of universities, etc). It would make for a certain amount of relatively fringe opinions being published, but it might help break the bottleneck, which after the elephant of prestige, is mainly about money to pay for the time of editorial staff.

krastanov 5y ago
Good journals already have some of these features, private or community driven. E.g. "Quantum Journal" is community driven, and while it lacks polish, it has a fairly functional editorial board. APS journals, which are much more polished (but also require submission and/or subscription fees), have pretty serious internal reviewer database (including editors evaluating the quality of the reviews).
xipho 5y ago
Peer review really not crowd-sourcable IMO. There is a general argument that an appeal to "free" labour is not sustainable, but it goes beyond that. At the highest levels of research in your area of specialty there are very few people who can provide useful feedback. These people tend to review each-other's work for the most pertinent facts (yes, somewhat circular but in my experience generally done well with good intention), other reviewers can chime in, but this might only address some of the more general things, like the stats in the method. Peer review is time-consuming, and you can easily burn-out on it if you accept. A recent journal had the model of "publish for free, just review 2 papers a year". It struggles to make it work. The only peer review that's relatively easy is when a paper is so terrible you out-right reject it, otherwise it's a lot of work. Making a stand as a PEER reviewer (I will only review for open-access journals) is not trivial either. At mid-level in your career you have many collaborators, and you're interested in their work, and the work of others in your field, and you want to make contributions. Almost certainly important work will come to you from Elsevier style journals. Almost certainly you'll want to say no, but you'll say yes.

by sgc 5y ago

krastanov 5y ago

Good journals already have some of these features, private or community driven. E.g. "Quantum Journal" is community driven, and while it lacks polish, it has a fairly functional editorial board. APS journals, which are much more polished (but also require submission and/or subscription fees), have pretty serious internal reviewer database (including editors evaluating the quality of the reviews).

xipho 5y ago

Peer review really not crowd-sourcable IMO. There is a general argument that an appeal to "free" labour is not sustainable, but it goes beyond that. At the highest levels of research in your area of specialty there are very few people who can provide useful feedback. These people tend to review each-other's work for the most pertinent facts (yes, somewhat circular but in my experience generally done well with good intention), other reviewers can chime in, but this might only address some of the more general things, like the stats in the method. Peer review is time-consuming, and you can easily burn-out on it if you accept. A recent journal had the model of "publish for free, just review 2 papers a year". It struggles to make it work. The only peer review that's relatively easy is when a paper is so terrible you out-right reject it, otherwise it's a lot of work. Making a stand as a PEER reviewer (I will only review for open-access journals) is not trivial either. At mid-level in your career you have many collaborators, and you're interested in their work, and the work of others in your field, and you want to make contributions. Almost certainly important work will come to you from Elsevier style journals. Almost certainly you'll want to say no, but you'll say yes.