“Report Abuse”

Posted on by
Reply

One idea that I don’t want us to lose from yesterday was the idea that a fraud/plagarism/quakery check need not be the responsibility of any one person. Yes, there’s likely an automated step to check for plagarism, but, after that, having a preprint randomly sent to, say, 5-10 people with the option of clicking a “report abuse option” (and then enter what kind of abuse) may well prove to be as efficient at culling bad items out of a preprint literature as any.

That, and it allows for an alternative archive of bunk. Which can be fairly useful, particularly when one wants to cite that a certain “point” is actually garbage, as it were.

Plos value addons

Posted on by
1

I just saw this, interesting. Many journals/societies are discussing the enhancements they provide in addition to the papers themselves. Discussion etc. in the form of blogs about the papers, but hosted by the journal directly is compelling. No reason that libraries could not also get into this and be the place for online academic discussion, or at least a particular subset thereof.

An idea about a rough do-able now experiment

Posted on by
4

Area51.stackechange is a site for people to propose nascent mathoverflow-like sites. As a first pass experiment on open review and a reputation economy (while we develop or find a way to develop a more sophisticated model) could we get the community to support an Ecology Preprint stackechange? We could have NCEAS host preprint pdfs from validated authors (i.e., have a ecopreprint.stackechange user account) and an individual ‘question’ would concern people’s comments on a paper.

We’d ask the community to volunteer to post preprints there fore at least, say, 2 months for submission, and given them the option of including their ‘review’ trail, etc. when they submit their paper to a journal.

Users would shape things like tags, etc. as the do on any stackoverflow site.

Granted, ‘review’ would be public, with usernames revealed. But, it’s an experiment.

After running this for ~6 months, we survey participants about their experience.

Thoughts?

Comment from Dave: You’d need some journals and high profile people to buy-in before doing this.