“Now with the rise of the online open source movement, an informal shared feedback system is again possible. Referred to as ‘post-publication peer review’ (PPPR), this relatively new, additional stage in the process permits the scientific community to buffer itself against flawed, damaging or dishonest research.”
“A spate of recent articles in the Guardian have drawn attention to lots of reasons why open access to research publications is reasonable, beneficial and even inevitable. But two recent letters columns in the Guardian, headlined “Information that we want to be free” and “Better models for open access”, have perpetuated some long-running misconceptions about open access that need to be addressed. It’s not surprising that for-profit, barrier-based publishers are fighting to stem the tide, by misinformation if necessary, but researchers and the general public need not be taken in….”
“Now that preprint servers are picking up speed, let’s talk about postprint servers. Sure, we have plenty of places to place and find discussions about the content of articles (e.g. PubPeer, PubMed Commons, …), and sure we have retractions and corrections.
But what if we could just make revisions of articles?
And I’m not only talking about typo-fixes, but also clarifications that show up during post-publication peer-review. Not about full revisions; if a paper is wrong, then this is not the method of choice. They should happen frequently either, but sometimes it is just convenient. Maybe to fix broken website URLs?
One point is, ResearchGate, Academia, Mendeley, and the likes allow you to host versions, but we need to track the fixes and versioned DOIs. That metadata is essential: it is the FAIRness of the post-publication life time of a publication….”
“Open Research Central is a portal through which research in any field can be submitted for formal publication on one of the open research publishing platforms.
These platforms are currently operated by F1000 and use a model of immediate publication followed by transparent invited peer review, and require the inclusion of all supporting data (see here for more details of the model).
This model has been running on F1000Research since its inception in 2013. It is also used on Wellcome Open Research (launched November 2016) for Wellcome grant holders, and will also be used on the upcoming Gates Open Research for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant holders and UCL Child Health Open Research for all research groups at UCL focusing on child health. See the respective platforms for details of the current model, as well as author guidelines and policies.
The model continues to evolve through ongoing consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders, including numerous researchers across scientific disciplines, research funders, institutions, policy makers, and others.
While F1000 is currently maintaining Open Research Central and the publishing platforms, our longer-term plan is to transition Open Research Central to being owned and governed by the international research community with broad representation across research funding agencies, research institutions, and researchers themselves. We will assemble a governing board shortly to start this process….”
“Our ORC is Open Research Central, it is a portal through which research in any field can be submitted for formal publication on one of the open research publishing platforms that we provide for funders and institutes.
We envision Open Research Central as a portal that will ultimately free researchers from the prisons of academic journals and become the default way in all research areas to formally publish their findings. It will be underpinned by several key principles: immediate publication; open data; open, transparent post publication peer review; and fully open access to all. If we succeed we will bring about a revolution in how academic researchers share their findings. A revolution with far reaching consequences that will significantly benefit not only the way research progresses but also our society in general, so dependent on the research that the sciences, engineering and humanities produce.”
“What I find intriguing is not so much that commercial publishers have learned how to involve academics in peer review, but rather that the learned societies appear to have relinquished the intellectual leadership that [David] Martin assumed was theirs.
With so many journals now being published by so many different societies, university presses and commercial firms, disciplinary leadership is more diffuse than it was 60 years ago and no longer obviously lies with learned societies. Based on ownership, the big four commercial publishers have a clear claim to leadership in the business of academic publishing. But these firms have no grounds on which to claim leadership in the provision of academic prestige.
Given current debates about how the future of academic publishing will be shaped by technology and open access, this matters hugely – and not simply because of the cost of access to research….”
Abstract: In post-publication peer review, scientific contributions are first published in open-access forums, such as arXiv or other digital libraries, and are subsequently reviewed and possibly ranked and/or evaluated. Compared to the classical process of scientific publishing, in which review precedes publication, post-publication peer review leads to faster dissemination of ideas, and publicly-available reviews. The chief concern in post-publication reviewing consists in eliciting high-quality, insightful reviews from participants.
We describe the mathematical foundations and structure of TrueReview, an open-source tool we propose to build in support of post-publication review. In TrueReview, the motivation to review is provided via an incentive system that promotes reviews and evaluations that are both truthful (they turn out to be correct in the long run) and informative (they provide significant new information). TrueReview organizes papers in venues, allowing different scientific communities to set their own submission and review policies. These venues can be manually set-up, or they can correspond to categories in well-known repositories such as arXiv. The review incentives can be used to form a reviewer ranking that can be prominently displayed alongside papers in the various disciplines, thus offering a concrete benefit to reviewers. The paper evaluations, in turn, reward the authors of the most significant papers, both via an explicit paper ranking, and via increased visibility in search.