What are the elements of peer review 2.0?

The whiteboard from our discussion of what should be part of our ideal peer-review system:

  • continuous
  • community rejection—the “quack” button
  • “reputation” for reviewing quality, meta-reviews
  • a review is a citable object (that therefore can be peer-reviewed)
  • scoring:
    • different levels of depth: review (continuum & content) vs. reader score
    • commenting: no score assigned
  • anchored reviewing (line #/annotation): can review pieces of an article
  • notification after revision, old versions marked as deprecated
  • versioning: what is the user interface to prevent confusion about the timeline?
  • private review possible
  • >comment as real person or pseudonym?
  • comments tied to a single account
  • conflict of interest for scored reviews

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>