How might we get to a new model of mathematical publishing? | Gowers’s Weblog

“I am more interested in whether mathematicians really need journal articles at all, now that we have the internet….I think that journals still have a vital role to play, even though the internet exists. However, like many people, I do not think it is at all obvious that they will continue to have a vital role to play, so I’d like to discuss two questions. 1. If we didn’t have journals, then what might we have instead? 2. How could the change from journals to whatever replaces them actually take place? …What I think could work is something like a cross between the arXiv, a social networking site, Amazon book reviews, and Mathoverflow….”

In support of journal-agnostic review | ASAPbio

“It’s easy to dismiss a paper when we think we know what the journal wants. In contrast, I found time and again that when a journal is new (and I’ve helped launch several journals, including Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell, PLOS Biology, and Disease Models & Mechanisms), peer reviews would take on a different quality. Reviewers would write something like, “I don’t know how to advise you because I don’t know what your standards are or what you want in the journal, so I guess I’ll just tell you the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and you will have to decide.” (Thank you, this is all I ever wanted). At the same time, authors would remark that the reviews were unusually constructive – whether we chose to accept or reject the paper. These are anecdotal observations, and I would love to collect some data on the quality of review when you don’t know journal identity.

Back in my days as a journal editor, not many biologists were posting preprints, so my idea was to create a “journal blind” submission system during standard peer review. But with BioRxiv and other preprint servers, performing peer review in advance of journal publication becomes possible. I encourage the community to try it, gather some data, and proceed based on evidence.”

APPRAISE (A Post-Publication Review and Assessment In Science Experiment) | ASAPbio

“I describe here a new project – called Appraise – that is both a model and experimental platform for what peer review can and should look like in a world without journals….

The rise of preprints gives us the perfect opportunity to create a new system that takes full advantage of the Internet to more rapidly, effectively and fairly engage the scientific community in assessing the validity, audience and impact of published works….

APPRAISE (A Post-Publication Review and Assessment In Science Experiment)…

It is perhaps easiest to think of Appraise as an editorial board without a journal (and we hope to be a model for how existing editorial boards can transition away from journals). Like journal editorial boards they will curate the scientific literature through the critical process of peer review. However members of Appraise will not be reviewing papers submitted to a journal and deciding whether it should be published. Rather Appraise reviewers are working in service of members of the scientific community, selecting papers they think warrant scrutiny and attention, and reviewing them to help others find, understand and assess published paper….

In the spirit of openness we encourage Appraise members to identify themselves, but recognize that the ability to speak freely sometimes requires anonymity. Appraise will allow members to post reviews anonymously provided that there are no conflicts of interest and the reviewer does not use anonymity as a shield for inappropriate behavior. Whether reviewers are publicly identified or not, Appraise will never tolerate personal attacks of any kind.

We are launching Appraise with a small group of scientists. This is for purely practical purposes – to develop our systems and practices without the challenges of managing a large, open community. But the goal is to as quickly as possible open the platform up to everyone.”

Altmetric Scores, Citations, and Publication of Studies Posted as Preprints | Medical Journals and Publishing | JAMA | The JAMA Network

“As preprints in medicine are debated, data on how preprints are used, cited, and published are needed. We evaluated views and downloads and Altmetric scores and citations of preprints and their publications. We also assessed whether Altmetric scores and citations of published articles correlated with prior preprint posting….Published articles with preprints had significantly higher Altmetric scores than published articles without preprints….”

APA releases new journal article reporting standards

“Brian Nosek, PhD, co-founder and director of the Center for Open Science, welcomed the new standards. “Achieving the ideals of transparency in science requires knowing what one needs to be transparent about,” he said. “These updated standards will improve readers’ understanding of what happened in the research. This will improve both the accuracy of interpretation of the existing evidence, and the ability to replicate and extend the findings to improve understanding.” APA has partnered with the Center for Open Science to advance open science practices in psychological research through open science badges on articles, a data repository for APA published articles and designating the COS’ PsyArXiv as the preferred preprint server for APA titles….”

SciELO Preprints on the way | SciELO in Perspective

“The SciELO Program is setting in motion a basic plan for the development and operation of a preprints server – SciELO Preprints.

The main objective is to contribute to speeding up the availability of research results and to position the scholarly communications from the countries that participate in the SciELO Network, and particularly its journals, in line with the advances and growing importance of preprints publication internationally….”

Open and Shut?: Realising the BOAI vision: Peter Suber’s Advice

Peter Suber’s current high-priority recommendations for advancing open access.

Open and Shut?: Realising the BOAI vision: Peter Suber’s Advice

Peter Suber’s high-priority recommendations for advancing OA.

MIT Libraries support open scholarship in the social sciences through SocArXiv | MIT Libraries News

“The MIT Libraries are pleased to announce our support of SocArXiv, an open archive of the social sciences that launched in beta version in November 2016. This free, noncommercial service for rapid sharing of academic papers is built on the Open Science Framework, a platform for researchers to upload data and code as well as research results….”

PCI Evol Biol

“Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology (PCI Evol Biol) has been launched in January 2017. It is a community of 339 recommenders playing the role of editors who recommend unpublished preprints based on peer-reviews to make them complete, reliable and citable articles, without the need for publication in ‘traditional’ journals. Evaluation and recommendation by PCI Evol Biol are free of charge. When a recommender decides to recommend a preprint, he/she writes a recommendation text that is published along with all the editorial correspondence (reviews, recommender’s decisions, authors’ replies) by PCI Evol Biol. The preprint itself is not published by PCI Evol Biol; it remains in the preprint server where it has been posted by the authors. PCI Evol Biol recommenders can also recommend, but to a lesser extent, postprints….”