LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:44:44 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:13:08 +0100

There is an interesting series of exchanges on a Force 11 group under
the heading crowd review which also picks out this announcement. It is
also concerned with post publication peer review. Some people have
produced some useful sources of hard information.

Does anyone know if one can reach Force 11 discussions from the
outside as a viewer? OSI discussions which can only be contributed to
by members can be reached from the main site which is of course
appropriate as they are concerned with open scholarship.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:07:33 -0400

This is really intriguing.....

One hopes that advances like these overcome other barriers that slow
down scientific progress.

Some barriers seem impossible to overcome.   The main one is that
anyone with a truly important insight, invention, development,
contribution, or theory--is simply going to keep it "close to the
vest."

Does selective (a more precise term than "intelligent") crowd peer
review help create surges in scientific progress?

This seems possible, but as yet unclear...

 Bill


On 6/12/17 6:07 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:17:58 -0400
>
> "The chemistry journal Synlett, published by Thieme, has successfully
> trialled a new system of peer review that allows a crowd of 100
> approved researchers to comment on manuscripts online.
>
> "The idea was born out of frustration with traditional peer review,
> says the journal’s editor in chief, Benjamin List of the Max Planck
> Institute for Coal Research in Germany. ‘What we do [at the moment] is
> sloppy – we let two people give their opinions and on the basis of
> this a paper gets accepted or not,’ he tells Chemistry World. ‘It’s
> slow and the quality can vary.’"
>
> [SNIP]
>
> https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/chemistry-journal-introduces-intel
> ligent-crowd-peer-review-/3007534.article?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RJNE9URmlNR1ZtWlRVMyIsInQiOiJwN2IxTDdtWXBsT2t1cXU0TW4zTlpnUFwvRWRcL2RIMFdzWXFZSEhRbk5Yc2pmTkw0MXlYcHRnTWpUeHJ6TkNwbFwvcm9pbU54YjY3VjZsWklYdVpKaXB1S2pyWjVwV1RYUXdTRzVPb1VlTndvRWdjYXZVVGVjNTZtZjdmaWNoRDRtbCJ9

ATOM RSS1 RSS2