3 ms·

> So I don't think accepting everything would be ideal, but I'm more than happy to try. An important caveat is that this experience isn't accepting everything;

by Vinnl 4y ago

> So I don't think accepting everything would be ideal, but I'm more than happy to try. An important caveat is that this experience isn't accepting everything; it's publishing everything (or at least, everything that satisfies the desk check and is sent out for peer review). The whole point is separating evaluation from publication; they'll still distinguish works that they think are significant and rigorous from those they do not, but all works will be accessible. That's the mental shift they're trying to make happen. (Disclosure: I volunteer for a project with a similar goal, that has received funding from eLife in the past: https://plaudit.pub https://plaudit.pub.)

als0 4y ago
Looking at https://plaudit.pub https://plaudit.pub and trying to understand it. It seems like a technical solution trying to solve a social problem (which I dare say is impossible). There's too much politics in academia for researchers to objectively endorse work of other research groups.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  Thanks for taking a look. I think the problem you signal is already present in peer review as well, unfortunately: the politics also influences reviewer's accept/reject recommendations. With Plaudit, at least, the endorsements are public, which we hope will mitigate phenomena like review rings.
  - als0 4y ago
    Blinded peer review at least enforces some degree of impartiality and anonymity, though obviously challenging in practice.
    - Vinnl 4y ago
      It tries to enforce that, but as you said, there's very little proof that that works, and strong indications that it does not: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2015/05/13/weighing-up-anonymity-and-openness-in-publication-peer-review/ https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2015/05/13/weighing-up-anon... Anonymity obviously can't be provided when reviews or endorsements are public, but partiality can at least be detected more easily.

by Vinnl 4y ago

als0 4y ago

Looking at https://plaudit.pub https://plaudit.pub and trying to understand it. It seems like a technical solution trying to solve a social problem (which I dare say is impossible). There's too much politics in academia for researchers to objectively endorse work of other research groups.

Vinnl 4y ago
Thanks for taking a look. I think the problem you signal is already present in peer review as well, unfortunately: the politics also influences reviewer's accept/reject recommendations. With Plaudit, at least, the endorsements are public, which we hope will mitigate phenomena like review rings.
- als0 4y ago
  Blinded peer review at least enforces some degree of impartiality and anonymity, though obviously challenging in practice.
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    It tries to enforce that, but as you said, there's very little proof that that works, and strong indications that it does not: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2015/05/13/weighing-up-anonymity-and-openness-in-publication-peer-review/ https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2015/05/13/weighing-up-anon... Anonymity obviously can't be provided when reviews or endorsements are public, but partiality can at least be detected more easily.