Blog
About

62
views
2
recommends
+1 Recommend
6
shares
  • Review: found
Is Open Access

Review of 'TrueReview: A Platform for Post-Publication Peer Review'

Bookmark
4
Less platforms, more community support.
Average rating:
    Rated 4.5 of 5.
Level of importance:
    Rated 5 of 5.
Level of validity:
    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of completeness:
    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:
    Rated 4 of 5.
Competing interests:
I work for ScienceOpen

Reviewed article

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

TrueReview: A Platform for Post-Publication Peer Review

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.
    Bookmark

    Review information

    10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.A1608.07878.v1.RTHWJH

    This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

    ScienceOpen disciplines:

    Review text

    This is a thoughtful piece by the authors on providing yet another venue for post-publication peer review (PPPR). However, I feel that more needs to be done to address more of the concerns or barriers that exist to large-scale PPPR. Providing another platform might address technological barriers, but the main barriers to PPPR uptake are inherently social. 

    Some of these are addressed in brief here: http://blog.scienceopen.com/2017/03/what-are-the-barriers-to-post-publication-peer-review/
     

    • Post-publication peer review takes too much time and effort on top of all other academic responsibilities
    • There is little motivation or duty to performing PPPR, despite existing incentives
    • There are alredy too many competing venues or platforms for PPPR, with little interoperability
    • Junior researchers (and other marginalised demographics) do not wish to appear 'confrontational' in public due to fear of public (or private) backlash from senior researchers
    • Usage and readership of PPPR is low

    Another useful post to consider in this context is here: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1205

    "“Post-publication peer review” (PPPR) has gained a lot of traction in recent years. As with much of peer review’s confusing lexicon, however, this term is ambiguous. This ambiguity stems from confusion over what constitutes “publication” in the digital age. PPPR conflates two distinct phenomena, which we would do better to treat separately, namely “open pre-review manuscripts” and “open final-version commenting”.

    I should also note that ScienceOpen allows PPPR for more than 31 million articles on the platform (at the time of writing), and not just those it has published. Numerical reputation is provided in reveiwer profils, as well as via platforms like ORCID or Publons.

    Either way, this looks like an exciting development, but I look forward to seeing more about how social/cultural barriers to PPPR can be addressed by the proposed platform. I fear that without consideration of these, any new platform will simply enter into system that academics are not ready for yet.

    Comments

    Comment on this review