Article
Version 1
Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed
The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)
Version 1
: Received: 19 January 2021 / Approved: 20 January 2021 / Online: 20 January 2021 (09:51:25 CET)
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Abdin, A.Y.; Nasim, M.J.; Ney, Y.; Jacob, C. The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications 2021, 9, 13. Abdin, A.Y.; Nasim, M.J.; Ney, Y.; Jacob, C. The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications 2021, 9, 13.
Abstract
Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer-review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steady, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript we propose forms of Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges such a P4R approach is facing.
Keywords
commenting options; open access publishing; peer review; public assessment; reward system; Sci; volunteers
Subject
Social Sciences, Library and Information Sciences
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments (0)
We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.
Leave a public commentSend a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment