Notes from PRC papers

gistfile1.txt

Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 2 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:16 PM

The proposed process envisions that authors post articles and data on repositories and journals peer review and curate those articles and data in exchange for service fees
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 3 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:21 PM

Publishers could also incentivize peer review service by offering vouchers to peer reviewers. Such vouchers would entitle the recipient to a discounted peer review for one of their own articles (note that the voucher won’t promise a favorable outcome of the peer review)
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 4 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:23 PM

The publication of peer review reports (with or without attribution) is necessary in a fee-for-service model to verify service quality. Otherwise we end up with problems like predatory journals that charge for services they don’t provide
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 4 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:25 PM

revised articles – when they are ready.
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:27 PM

may also determine that not all research outputs need the same level of scrutiny (some research articles may suffice to be shared as a preprint without peer review or curation). Cultural
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:30 PM

Journals would no longer be the only source for published articles because articles would also be available on repositories. Journals would focus on and get paid for their most critical functions, the evaluation and selection of research articles
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:31 PM

An unjustified bad review can then be superseded and disqualified by subsequent comments or successful instances of building upon the research. As an initial step, reviewing journals could disregard a peer review and offer a re-review at no extra cost if authors contest a peer review for valid reasons. Journals (and their reviewers) won’t be tempted to go ‘soft’ and err on the side of positive reviews because their reputation would suffer if flawed articles did receive their backing. Scientists and funders don’t want rubber-stamping – they want constructive reviews by critical experts in the field
==========
Proposal for scientific publishers 0507
- Highlight on Page 6 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:32 PM

Many funders have already accepted preprints as evidence of productivity (e.g. HHMI). Flexibility with the expectation of journal certification helps to cope with the ever-growing amount of scientific data and articles. We want to encourage scientists to share all the research that is fit to share, including negative and confirmatory data
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 2 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:38 PM

ifwewanttodissuadefromtheuse ofjournal-levelmetricsintheevaluationofscientists,wewillneedtodevelopmechanisms thatmakeexpertevaluationsmorediscoverable,includingeasy-to-usearticle-levelmetrics thatreflectrelevantqualityfeaturesofindividualarticles.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 3 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:40 PM

Journal-agnostic.Peerreviewthatisindependentofjournalsfocusesonfeedbacktothe authorsandevaluationoftechnicalqualityandoriginalityofthesubmittedwork.Itreverses thetrendinwhichpeerreviewhasmorphedintoameansofassistingeditorsindeciding whetherapaperissuitablefortheirjournal.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 4 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:42 PM

openresearcherandcontributorID(ORCID)profile.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:46 PM

ifan authordecidestostandbyapaperdespiteseriouscriticismfrompeers,atleastthosecriticisms willbeaccessibletoreaders,whocandecideforthemselveswhetherthey
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:48 PM

Howcouldscientistsfindworkofinterestinaseaofprimaryarticlespostedbyauthorsand improvedbypeerreviewers?Thisrequiresfilteringorcurationofprimaryresearcharticlesfor specificaudiences(e.g.,experts)orbroaderaudiences.Expertswouldfindvaluablecontentin theirownresearchfieldthroughpowerfulsearchengines.Becausesearchalgorithmswillonly getbetterinthefuture,weexpectthatmanyspecializedjournalsthatcurrentlycuratealarge fractionoftheliteraturewillbecomeobsolete.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:50 PM

Peerreviewbeforepublicationhas becomeaseriouschallengebecauselifesciencesresearchisincreasinglyinterdisciplinary withdataanalysis,notdatageneration,astherate-limitingstep.Howcanweexpectthefew peerreviewerstoverifysignificanceandconceptualadvancesbeforepublication,whenthis jobcouldtakeasignificantfractionofthetimeittooktheauthorstoproducetheiranalysis inthefirstplace,andwhenthereviewer’sexpertiseoftendoesn’tcoverallaspectsofthe describedwork[16]
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 5 | Added on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 03:50 PM

•Post-publicationcurationcancontinueovertimeandhighlightmanydifferentfeaturesof articles,unlikeaone-time,thumbs-uppublishingdecisionatjournals. •Post-publicationcurationcaninprinciplecovertheentirepublishedliterature,beyondarticlessubmittedtoaparticularjournal. •Effectivepost-publicationcurationoffersthepromiseofalternativestojournal-basedmetricsliketheJIF.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 6 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 07:55 AM

somefractionofspecializedarticlesmaynotevenneedformalpeerreview,becausethefewscientistswhoaccess thesearticlesonpreprintserverscanquicklyevaluaterigorandqualityofthedatathemselves.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 6 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:04 AM

Someselectioncriteriacouldbesimilartothosejournalsusetoday, including“ofbroadinterest,”“ofunusualsignificance,”“potentiallygroundbreakingbutcontroversial,”or“rigorousandelegant.”Alternatively,curatorscouldflagarticlesthatare PLOSBiology|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116February12,2019 6/10personalfavorites,asF1000Primedoes.Aparticularlyvaluablecurationservicewouldbeto identifysignificantclaimsinpublishedarticlesthatarequestionableorcouldnotbevalidated inthecommunity.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 7 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:04 AM

capturenuancesandcomplexitiesmuchbetterthantraditionaljournals,inwhich both“positive”and“negative”curationtypicallyboildowntosimpledecisions—whetherto publishorwhethertoretract.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 7 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:05 AM

Thecombinationofcommunityinputandindependenteditorialoversightensures thattheselectionprocessisnotasimplepopularitycontest.Selectionofanarticleissignaled bytaggingthearticlewithabadge(seebelow)andcanbejustifiedwithashortreview.
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 7 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:07 AM

Traineescouldbeengagedincurationthroughmentoredjournalclubs,similartotheirengagementinthereviewofpreprints throughpreprintjournalclubs[24]
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 7 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:08 AM

Post-publicationcuration offersanopportunitytodevelopsuchproxiesintheformof“badges.”Badgeswouldcapture theselectionofarticlesinashorthandformandwouldbeattachedtopapersinadiscoverable andsearchablemanner.Likepost-publicationcuration,badgescouldbemultidimensional. Authorscouldcontributetobadgingthroughstructuredcitations—e.g.byflaggingresearch andmethodsarticlesthatwerefoundationalforagivenarticle,similartothepracticeatthe CurrentOpinionsjournals,whichmarkreferencesthatare“ofoutstandinginterest”and“of specialinterest.”(Formoreideasonmakingcitationsmoreuseful,see
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 7 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:13 AM

Curationjournalscouldcontributetobadgingbysignalingthattheselectedpapersatisfiesthejournal’s PLOSBiology|https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116February12,2019 7/10editorialstandards,conveyingthesameinformationascurrentpublishingdecisions.Other badgescouldbegenerateddirectlyonpublishingplatformsbyaggregatingpeerreviewer scoresorbyincludingshortsummarystatementsthatdistillkeyaspectsofthepaper—originality,significance,keyfindings,remainingreviewerconcerns,targetaudience,etc
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 8 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:14 AM

Finally,somebadgescouldtakefulladvantageofinternetcapabilitiesandbegenerated automaticallythroughcrowdsourcingandanalyticsovertime(citations,readability,data usage,etc.).Altmetricsrepresentoneexistingexampleofarticle-specificmetricsthataggregate citations,downloads,socialmediamentions,etc.[27].Adisadvantageofusageandcitation metricsisthattheyarelaggingindicatorsthattakealongtimetoacrrue
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 8 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:14 AM

Becausecurationandbadgesarenot“writteninstone”likeapublishingdecision,theycanberevisedover time,
==========
journal.pbio.3000116 (Bodo M. Stern, Erin K. O#_#x2019;Shea)
- Highlight on Page 8 | Added on Friday, May 29, 2020, 08:16 AM

Howcanweoptimizethestructureofpeerreviewandtheselectionofpeerreviewersfor platformpublishing?Howdowedeterminewhatlevelofpeerreviewanarticleneedsinthe firstplace—none,basic,premium?Howcanthepeerreviewreportsbestructured—with scoresandshortstatementsofkeyfeatures—tocontributemosteffectivelytosubsequentpostpublicationcurationandbadges?
==========
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104280/is-it-ethical-to-send-an-unpublished-draft-preprint-to-a-competitor-by-email-to/104297#104297
There is on the other hand a correct and sure way to establish priority, and that is to post publicly a timestamped proof of the result (the arXiv would be the canonical place to do it). Do not worry about the paper being incomplete; as long as the proof is complete, and correct, you have established priority and are free to later add other things or make other improvements to the paper by posting a new version or a completely new preprint.
==========