4 ms·

Quick suggestion from a researcher: people will only want to submit if there’s an editorial team with high trust and reputation for their specific area. Automa

by bo1024 4y ago

Quick suggestion from a researcher: people will only want to submit if there’s an editorial team with high trust and reputation for their specific area. Automated reviewer matching won’t be good enough to find decent reviewers. I would suggest partnering with people in very specific disciplines who want to break away and establish open access journals, but want to focus on the editor and review process rather than the logistics (which you provide).

bo1024 4y ago
I would call it something more specific than peer review.
- dbingham 4y ago
  Name suggestions welcome! I suck at naming - Peer Review was a working title intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek (similar to StackOverflow). But... because I suck at naming, it is, of course, a little on the nose. So far I haven't come up with anything better.
  - Sugimot0 4y ago
    Unless 'peer review' elicits negative feelings in the target audience it seems like a pretty good name. It relates to the core concept, it's respectable and easily memorable. Seems like good branding but I'm no expert, nor am I the target audience. To toss a few names in the hat, off the top of my head: - openresearch - colab - openjournal - stud.io Probably collect a few ideas and run a small survey for the initial audience
    - bo1024 4y ago
      My concern is that "peer review" is a wide term, it would be kind of like calling a startup Web Browser or Network Engineering. Too much confusion.
dbingham 4y ago
This is on the roadmap. The plan is to create a "Journal" entity on the site. Editors can create a Journal on the site and then create teams of reviewers which they tag with fields. Authors submitting papers can then submit those papers to community review, or one or more journals, or both. Reviews coming from journal's teams will be highlighted. At any point during the review process, once the journal's team is satisfied, they can mark the paper with their badge of approval. Papers can collect badges from multiple journals. If the authors disagree with the journals team, or just get tired of waiting, they can still publish at any time just like with community review. For authors who choose both, the journal's team and community reviewers can interact with each other just as in normal community review. I think it's a way to provide a stepping stone for people from the existing system towards full community review and would provide logistics to those organizing open journals with teams of high quality reviewers. The plan is to implement it during the closed beta period. I would welcome feedback on this concept as well :)
- bo1024 4y ago
  Sounds great and good luck!

by bo1024 4y ago

bo1024 4y ago

I would call it something more specific than peer review.

dbingham 4y ago
Name suggestions welcome! I suck at naming - Peer Review was a working title intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek (similar to StackOverflow). But... because I suck at naming, it is, of course, a little on the nose. So far I haven't come up with anything better.
- Sugimot0 4y ago
  Unless 'peer review' elicits negative feelings in the target audience it seems like a pretty good name. It relates to the core concept, it's respectable and easily memorable. Seems like good branding but I'm no expert, nor am I the target audience. To toss a few names in the hat, off the top of my head: - openresearch - colab - openjournal - stud.io Probably collect a few ideas and run a small survey for the initial audience
  - bo1024 4y ago
    My concern is that "peer review" is a wide term, it would be kind of like calling a startup Web Browser or Network Engineering. Too much confusion.

dbingham 4y ago

This is on the roadmap. The plan is to create a "Journal" entity on the site. Editors can create a Journal on the site and then create teams of reviewers which they tag with fields. Authors submitting papers can then submit those papers to community review, or one or more journals, or both. Reviews coming from journal's teams will be highlighted. At any point during the review process, once the journal's team is satisfied, they can mark the paper with their badge of approval. Papers can collect badges from multiple journals. If the authors disagree with the journals team, or just get tired of waiting, they can still publish at any time just like with community review. For authors who choose both, the journal's team and community reviewers can interact with each other just as in normal community review. I think it's a way to provide a stepping stone for people from the existing system towards full community review and would provide logistics to those organizing open journals with teams of high quality reviewers. The plan is to implement it during the closed beta period. I would welcome feedback on this concept as well :)

bo1024 4y ago
Sounds great and good luck!