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.

The aim of this paper is to analyse commenting activity and sentiment (polarity and subjectivity) in interactions in response to videos by Spain’s most-subscribed YouTubers. An exploratory study was conducted on the content of the comments, their relationship with other social media actions, subjectivity and polarity, as well as from the perspective of the participatory culture. The results show that commenting is a potential option for interaction that is underused by the communities of users. Replies to comments are found to be limited to the user-user level, while YouTubers themselves and the moderators that YouTube allows them to designate rarely comment or reply on social networks. However, creators do monitor comments and provide feedback to a limited selection thereof in subsequent videos. There thus appears to be a strategic, exploitative use of comments, marked by a delayed response aimed at attracting audiences to new content.