New answers tagged

5

As Tim Gowers wrote in 2013 in the context of an experimental peer review website: [...] It is easy to come up with ideas for websites where people can review papers, complete with clever protocols for how the reviewing should take place, whether it is open, reward systems, etc. etc. It’s much less easy to persuade people to use the sites that are created ...


5

I'm taking the definition as provided in OP: Why isn't full-fledged self-archival with classical peer review and curation, post-publication commenting, and avoidance of old-school production procedures finally taking off? The first part has already "taken off" and is standard in my field (physics). The latter part, post-publication commenting, ...


4

In a sense, there is post-publication review: It just doesn't happen on websites, but in subsequent papers written by others. And the opinions of others are also recorded: In a sense, a citation is like a "Like" on Facebook: The citing authors thought the cited paper offered some useful background to readers of their authors. In other words, papers ...


5

As in the other answers, the premise of the question is a bit inaccurate. For work that turns out to be important, people look at it critically (with interest) long after it has supposedly been "refereed" and "published" (in the sense of being endorsed by a journal). And will look at it critically (with interest) as soon as it's available ...


4

Because post-publication peer reviews are not currently recognized as useful contributions, so why do them when I could do something that would help me get a job?


27

Most papers that are published are uninteresting. The median paper has less than one reader not counting the authors and the reviewers. The current reviewing system relies on a network of responsibilities that are independent of the author. The editors have a responsibility to the community as a whole to get papers reviewed properly, and the community gives ...


5

In a sense, post publication peer review has always been in place. Prior to publication peer review has the purpose of improving a paper before it appears (or at least prior to its formal publication). This is normally a private matter between a journal or conference and the authors. Post publication, however, peer review has a different purpose and can no ...


16

In a sense, it has taken off; you just need to change your definitions: in mathematics, most papers get peer reviewed after they have appeared on the Arxiv and are available to the public. Results then appear in prestigious journals, so they are ultimately trusted and used to evaluate researchers and compare academic egos, only after they have been carefully ...


Top 50 recent answers are included