“We believe more discourse around research is a good thing. To that end, we have partnered with Hypothesis, a third-party platform, to allow for annotation and discussion on our preprints services. Annotation on preprints will increase transparency in scientific practices by enabling researchers to collaborate, discuss research with peers, and share additional information directly on preprints both before and after they are posted.”
“Very short version
- (optional) When you submit your article to a journal, upload that pre-print non-peer-reviewd version in a pre-print repository of your choice (e.g. Zenodo, MarXiv, …) with a CC-BY licence.
- When your article has been accepted, upload that post-print peer-reviwed version in MarXiv (with the licence required by the publisher; e.g. it could be a CC-BY-NC-ND licence)
- Wait till the final paper is published in your selected journal.”
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation strongly supports the Wellcome Trust’s call for the open sharing of all research findings and data relevant to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We agree that it is imperative that research and data should be shared rapidly and openly during this and all future public health emergencies….”
“The TTOA Consortium is an initiative of the Fair Open Access Alliance (www.fairopenaccess.org) and includes ‘native’ open access publishers, traditional subscription-based publishers, and open access publishers that do not charge authors: PLOS, MDPI, De Gruyter, Open Edition, Copernicus Publications, Ubiquity Press, Brill, and OLH. In addition to these publishers, the following organizations are collaborating partners: CWTS (Leiden University), QOAM, MPDL….
The TTOA [Transparent Transition to Open Access] Consortium has instead developed a different approach to manage the transition to open access, while embracing all the final features specified in the ORE Call for Tender….
The submission portal, archive, and publication platform would be financed by research funding organisations, while the peer-review and quality control are carried out by the journals of participating publishers. This infrastructure should be built from open-source software, operate under open standards, and be owned or hosted by non-profit organizations…..”
Abstract: Heuristics (or intuitions), while quite often helpful, can lead to mistakes when they are not fit for a particular environment. As a result, heuristics can be detrimental to a scientific endeavor, where the researcher is expected to remain as accurate, impartial, and logical as possible. This tendency of individuals to use faulty intuitions is one of the main reasons for the existence of a peer-review process in academe. Due to the current system of journal publication and peerreview, however, there is a high potential for bias in scientific publishing. Researchers may be risk averse, attempting to research that which they think will receive funding and get published. “Salami-slicing” works to increase one’s publication count, only publishing novel and positive results, and overselling the impacts of results have all become common practices to get ahead. Referees in the journal peer-review process may also be biased in their assessments of what research meets their standards. Journals that do not accept replication studies, articles that go against the prevailing paradigm, or experiments that do not meet the .05 statistical significance cut-off inadvertently skew the scientific knowledgebase. Possible solutions to the biases in the current system of journal publishing and peer-review will be considered, particularly the acceptance of a centralized open access repository. If researchers utilize one repository that collects all research and publishes before the review process, biases concerning publication may be avoided entirely and the quality of research may be assessed after the fact. Instead of one bias that is enforced, postpublication review may allow for a proliferation of paradigms to emerge. One commonly used and agreed upon centralized open access repository would also allow for new journals to arise that are more domain-specific. Such a solution would increase the speed of discovery, innovation, and greatly facilitate scientific advancement.
“EUREKA is a scientific review and rating platform fuelled by the EUREKA token. Blockchain has the capacity to open science and make research findings immutable, transparent and decentralised. EUREKA revolutionises the scientific publishing and reviewing process by making it more efficient and fair using the EUREKA token to compensate all parties involved. Scientific discoveries can now be openly rated and rewarded based on the quality of the research….
Scientific observations are timestamped, hashed and recorded on the Ethereum blockchain. This gives the author or inventor immediate ownership rights, and ensures scientists’ and researchers’ discoveries are tamper-proof….
Scientific observations undergo crowdsourced, peer-to-peer reviews which are transmitted and recorded on the EUREKA platform. The EUREKA platform will make use of crowdsourced wisdom and reviewers to get fast, accurate evaluations of the work, instead of being restricted to one or two reviewers, as is common practice….
The EUREKA platform’s crowdsourced scoring of scientific work will provide researchers as well as publishers with a new metric that can be used to evaluate submissions more swiftly. Preprints or observations with ratings and reviews will be archived through the EUREKA decentralised and distributed system. In cases where the author wants to publish in a traditional journal, the scores can be transferred to the journals. The test scores are also available to funders, universities and prize or awards committees….”