4 ms·
The best way to allow multiple submissions while amortizing the review work is to make reviews (and rebuttals) public, and overlay them on submissions made publ
by ssivark 3y ago
The best way to allow multiple submissions while amortizing the review work is to make reviews (and rebuttals) public, and overlay them on submissions made public on some preprint server.
This establishes priority (if credit is a concern), can be made blind / double-blind if so desired, and also makes public the reviews (which are as much a public service as writing research papers). Which editorial boards “accept” the paper for publication is then simply a matter of collecting endorsement tags on the submission.
- nextos 3y agoWith a few minor changes, eLife is a non-profit journal that has that kind of peer review process: https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review It is quite well regarded now, they publish excellent research and the whole process is crystal clear.
- radus 3y agoOne of my favorite journals. Perhaps of interest to HNers is their fairly active GitHub: https://github.com/elifesciences https://github.com/elifesciences, and my favorite project of theirs, Lens: https://github.com/elifesciences/lens https://github.com/elifesciences/lens, it's a paper viewer that actually makes reading papers easier (there's loads of these out there but most are crap and inferior to a PDF).
- krull10 3y agoI think it remains to be seen how/if its reputation changes given their new approach. It will take a number of years before its impact can really be assessed.
- Helmut10001 3y agoI recently submitted to PLOS One. They publish the complete review alongside, after acceptance. I feel like this is already a big win for transparency. Immediate review publication would be even better.
- beanjuice 3y agoNature also does this, it can be rejected, but this is a suspicious sign.