12 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2021
    1. Allow authors to choose whether to show a review in some contexts.

      We are implementing something similar to this in our PREreview/OPS system integration. As for right now it's the admin of the server who decide if they want to have the reviews only displayed when the author has requested feedback. But it could be easily added or modified to be that that's a decision that the author should make. I'll note this down.

    2. Authors’ responses should be displayed with the same level of prominence as the reviews.

      We have comment options to full PREreviews but they are not yet used much. Comments though are not on the same level of full PREreviews, as they don't get a DOI like the full PREreviews do. Do people think comments should also get DOIs?

    3. The section or aspect of the work they want feedback on 

      This is something we at PREreview have been thinking a lot about, but have not yet had time or funds to implement. I would LOVE to see this implemented as it would open up ways to piece together reviews from different review communities.

    4. As a reviewer, I want to see an indicator when preprint authors want comments so that I can feel confident that my comments are welcomed.

      As part of the PREreview/OPS integration, when an author is submitting a preprint to an OPS-based server, they can request feedback from the PREreview community. The request will then be displayed next to the preprint on the server upon its publication as well as on PREreview website where the preprint will appear flagged as "author request" for review and be foundable through a dedicated filter.

    5. Display reviews next to the preprint 

      This is also being implemented between PREreview and OPS. We will display both rapid and full PREreviews next to the preprint. We are also implementing a way for OPS-based servers' admin to choose if they wish the reviews to be displayed only if the authors have requested feedback at the time of submission. This is something very important for certain communities such as SciELO.

    6. Present authors with the option to request reviews

      We are currently implementing this workflow within the OPS system. We would love to standardize it using the COAR review request protocol (https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/overlay-proposed-model/) and integrate with other preprint servers and reviews aggregators such as Sciety.

    7. code of conduct

      At PREreview during on-boarding we ask all new users to abide to our Code of Conduct https://content.prereview.org/coc. Reviews can be flagged by other community members as violation of the CoC and our team will review these violation and act accordingly. This is very important to us.

    8. conflicts of interest

      On PREreview we have a field to disclose COI for both the rapid and full PREreviews but we don't require users to fill it out. Perhaps we should?

    9. Preserve options for reviewer pseudonymity and anonymity

      This is something we believe key if we want to truly engage vulnerable communities in the review process. On PREreview, users get two personas which on the back end are linked to the same orcid id but on the front end they appear as two separate profiles. One public with name and orcid id and one anonymous with a given pseudonym that cannot be changed by the user. Users then decide if they want to comment using either of the personas. If they violate the code of conduct, however, we can still keep them accountable as the personas are linked. More on this here: https://content.prereview.org/about-the-platform/

    10. Enable live conversations among reviewers about a paper 

      On PREreview we have a comment box to allow users to comment on full PREreviews, but we have not seen much use of them yet. Possibly because people don't know that option exist. It's likely a UI issue on top of an awareness / new behavior issue. Additionally we integrated with Plaudit to allow readers of review to endorse the reviews as well.

    11. highly-visible badge when my preprint is reviewed

      We are working with the Mexican team eScire to integrate PREreview into the Open Preprint System (OPS) so that PREreviews, both rapid and full, will display next to the preprint that has received the comments. Also we are implementing an author-driven request right at the time of preprint submission so that the author(s) can request community feedback and be notified when that happens. We have very limited funding for this and it would help to work with other third-party sites to develop this integration further and standardize the integration protocol to the newly developed review request protocol by the COAR team https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/overlay-proposed-model/.

    12. summaries of comments

      Rapid PREreviews are structured reviews of preprints designed to capture the essence of a preprint. They are composed of 12 yes/no/n.a/not sure questions. We then display the aggregated responses from reviewers so that readers can get a rapid impression of the overall perception around that preprint. Here's an example of 5 Rapid PREreviews on a bioRxiv preprints https://prereview.org/preprints/doi-10.1101-2020.07.04.187583. We are working to integrate the display of rapid PREreviews into OPS so that soon SciELO and RINarXiv preprint servers will display this content next to the preprint. We would love more support to optimize the visualization of the rapid PREreviews and integrate them with more servers.