Post-publication peer review - Revision history

Jakob Suckale: /* See also */

2012-11-07T12:24:12Z

Jakob Suckale at 12:14, 7 November 2012

2012-11-07T12:14:27Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 7 November 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:

	=== Post-review journals/platforms ===		=== Post-review journals/platforms ===
-	Faculty of 1000 is currently (2012) testing a post-publication review platform, or a call it a journal if you prefer. [http://f1000research.com/ F10000 Research] will be an online publication service that publishes articles almost immediately, after a brief quality check by their editorial team. The review process follows and is fully documented alongside the versions of the research article.	+	Faculty of 1000 is currently (2012) testing a post-publication review platform, or a call it a journal if you prefer. [http://f1000research.com/ F10000 Research] will be an online publication service that publishes articles almost immediately, after a brief quality check by their editorial team. The review process follows and is fully documented alongside the versions of the research article. For more see this article on [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter of F1000].

	=== See also ===		=== See also ===

	* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]		* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]
-	* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ Article on post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter of F1000, 2012]
	* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]		* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]

Jakob Suckale: /* See also */

2012-11-07T12:13:26Z

Jakob Suckale: see also

2012-11-07T12:09:55Z

see also

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:09, 7 November 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]		* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]
	* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ Article on post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter, 2012]		* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ Article on post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter, 2012]
		+	* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]
	* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]		* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]

Jakob Suckale: see also

2012-11-07T12:03:28Z

see also

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, 7 November 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:

	* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]		* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]
		+	* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ Article on post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter, 2012]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]
	* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]		* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]

Jakob Suckale: see also

2012-10-29T14:00:13Z

see also

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:00, 29 October 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:
	=== See also ===		=== See also ===

-	* [[~~OpenVisionScience~~]] ~~& a link there to the~~ [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing]	+	* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]
	* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]		* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]

Jakob Suckale: categories

2012-10-29T13:53:25Z

Jakob Suckale: see also

2012-10-29T13:52:19Z

see also

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 29 October 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:

	* [[OpenVisionScience]] & a link there to the [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing]		* [[OpenVisionScience]] & a link there to the [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing]
		+	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]
	* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]		* [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee\|summary of the UK 2011 inquiry into peer review]]
	* [[BE_Board:Dinner_Discussion/Alternate_publishing_models\|brief discussion notes on alternative publishing models]]		* [[BE_Board:Dinner_Discussion/Alternate_publishing_models\|brief discussion notes on alternative publishing models]]
	* [[OpenWetWare:Information management/a model for novel publishing]]		* [[OpenWetWare:Information management/a model for novel publishing]]
	* [http://blog.openwetware.org/community/2008/02/03/what-would-be-your-top-5-priorities-from-a-new-style-publishing-system/ discussion on publication on OWW blogs 2008]		* [http://blog.openwetware.org/community/2008/02/03/what-would-be-your-top-5-priorities-from-a-new-style-publishing-system/ discussion on publication on OWW blogs 2008]

Jakob Suckale: illustration

2012-10-29T13:49:38Z

illustration

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 29 October 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Image:Post-publication peer review schematic.png\|right\|thumb\|250px\|'''Traditional pre-publication peer review'''. One of the main disadvantages lies in the time lost during the sometimes protracted peer review process. Also, the secrecy of the review process means that the valuable comments of the reviewers are invisible to the public.]]
		+
	Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server [http://arxiv.org arXiv] but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.		Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server [http://arxiv.org arXiv] but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.

Jakob Suckale: F1000 Research

2012-10-29T11:19:01Z

F1000 Research

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 29 October 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server [http://arxiv.org arXiv] but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.		Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server [http://arxiv.org arXiv] but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.
		+
		+	=== Post-review journals/platforms ===
		+	Faculty of 1000 is currently (2012) testing a post-publication review platform, or a call it a journal if you prefer. [http://f1000research.com/ F10000 Research] will be an online publication service that publishes articles almost immediately, after a brief quality check by their editorial team. The review process follows and is fully documented alongside the versions of the research article.

	=== See also ===		=== See also ===

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 29 October 2012
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* [[OpenWetWare:Information management/a model for novel publishing]]		* [[OpenWetWare:Information management/a model for novel publishing]]
	* [http://blog.openwetware.org/community/2008/02/03/what-would-be-your-top-5-priorities-from-a-new-style-publishing-system/ discussion on publication on OWW blogs 2008]		* [http://blog.openwetware.org/community/2008/02/03/what-would-be-your-top-5-priorities-from-a-new-style-publishing-system/ discussion on publication on OWW blogs 2008]
		+
		+	[[category:publishing]]
		+	[[category:opinion]]
		+	[[category:review]]
		+	[[category:journals]]

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 7 November 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:

	* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]		* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]
		+	* [http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/ Richard Smith: What is post publication peer review?]
	* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]		* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 7 November 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:

	* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]		* [[Image:3stars.png]] [http://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/ future of science publishing blog] and its mention on [[OpenVisionScience]]
-	* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ Article on post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter, 2012]	+	* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431010/ Article on post-publication peer review by Jane Hunter of F1000, 2012]
	* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]		* thoughts regarding post-publication reader feedback [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/19/post-publication-peer-review-what-value-do-usage-based-metrics-offer/] [http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/03/26/the-problems-with-calling-comments-post-publication-peer-review/]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Postpublication_reviews short paragraph on post-publication peer review in the Wikipedia article on peer review]