From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:00:07 -0700

Yes, interesting.

This piece is surprising:

We characterize our review criterion as being “selective for
credibility only”—checking for the scientific, methodological, and
ethical rigor of a paper, and removing, as much as humanly possible,
more subjective reviewing criteria for novelty or anticipated impact.
Open reviews will support this mission—to show that there is nothing
“lite” about this kind of review (and in fact, sometimes quite the
opposite).

To remove "subjective" criteria for novelty?! Why then to publish?!

Ari Belenkiy
Vancouver BC


On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:43 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:25:56 +0100
>
> Earlier this year University of California Press (UC Press) launched a
> new open access mega journal called Collabra.
>
> One of the distinctive features of Collabra is that its authors can
> choose to have the peer review reports signed by the reviewers and
> published alongside their papers, making them freely available for all
> to read — a process usually referred to as open peer review.
>
> Since Collabra is offering open peer review on a voluntary basis it
> remains unclear how many papers will be published in this way, but the
> signs are encouraging: the authors of the first paper published by
> Collabra opted for open peer review, as have the majority of authors
> whose papers are currently being processed by the publisher. Moreover,
> no one has yet refused to be involved because open peer review is an
> option, and no one has expressed a concern about it.
>
> So how does open peer review work in practice and what issues does it
> raise? A short Q&A with UC Press Director Alison Mudditt is available
> here:
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/open-peer-review-at-collabra-q-with-uc.html