21 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
  2. Sep 2020
  3. Aug 2020
  4. Jul 2020
  5. Jun 2020
  6. May 2020
  7. Apr 2020
  8. Sep 2019
    1. Transparent Review in Preprints will allow journals and peer review services to show peer reviews next to the version of the manuscript that was submitted and reviewed.

      A subtle but important point here is that when the manuscript is a preprint then there are two public-facing documents that are being tied together-- the "published" article and the preprint. The review-as-annotation becomes the cross-member in that document association.

  9. Jun 2017
    1. protected platform whereby many expert reviewers could read and comment on submissions, as well as on fellow reviewers’ comments

      Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.

    2. intelligent crowd reviewing

      Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.

  10. Aug 2016
    1. Clarity on what qualifies as a respected preprint

      Why should we respect a preprint? I'm not sure that we should respect anonymously peer reviewed journal articles as much as we do. It's important to remain critical, and I worry that trying to put a veneer of 'respectability' over preprints is not as helpful as expecting people to read them to judge content.

  11. May 2016
    1. the median review time at journals has grown from 85 days to >150 days during the past decade (5)

      This statement is a misunderstanding of Powell 2016, which states:

      At Nature, the median review time has grown from 85 days to just above 150 days over the past decade, according to Himmelstein's analysis.

      However,

      the median review time — the time between submission and acceptance of a paper — has hovered at around 100 days for more than 30 years.

      So while the median review time at Nature has gone from 85 to 150 days, this is not the case for all journals. See also the related Tweet.