Comments on: APPRAISE (A Post-Publication Review and Assessment In Science Experiment) https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/ Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9 By: Tim Vines https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/#comment-23 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 http://pl-asapbio.local/eisen-appraise/#comment-23 Fascinating stuff, but what’s the financial model here? Quality peer review needs to be managed to keep it on time and on track, and to catch errors before they become visible and cause serious reputation damage. Volunteer academics can’t provide this oversight for anything but a very small operation, so to scale you’ll need an editorial office of some sort. That means employees, and that means getting revenue. Reflect on this: commercial publishers have strived to cut costs for decades, and almost none of their journals operate without an editorial office.

]]> By: Shane McKee https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/#comment-24 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 http://pl-asapbio.local/eisen-appraise/#comment-24 Volunteer academics typically already to this for journals for free. If this is going to work it’s not unreasonable to suggest that funding is sourced at government level for the admin and additional curation involved (a lot less than $10bn, or even the pure governmental contribution towards that). Journals are broken. Time to put them out of our misery.

]]> By: Tim Vines https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/#comment-25 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 http://pl-asapbio.local/eisen-appraise/#comment-25 Volunteer don’t do editorial office work for journals for free – they act as editors. It’s an important distinction, because the former get paid full time salaries.

]]> By: Shane McKee https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/#comment-26 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 http://pl-asapbio.local/eisen-appraise/#comment-26 Unpaid academics provide the peer review. Employees of journals who put the stuff together get paid, but they don’t peer review. Editorial office work is what we’re talking about doing away with altogether and replacing with a different model of dissemination. It’ll need funded of course, but by a different mechanism.

]]> By: Tim Vines https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/#comment-27 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 http://pl-asapbio.local/eisen-appraise/#comment-27 You’re right, EO’s don’t peer review. They manage peer review, making sure that the articles are in a fit state to review, that reviewers and editors get nudged to return their comments, that major errors are spotted and fixed, that ethical issues are caught, etc etc. Volunteer academics just don’t have the bandwidth to do this on a consistent basis at scale.

]]> By: Robert Kiley https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise/#comment-28 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:28:41 +0000 http://pl-asapbio.local/eisen-appraise/#comment-28 Mike — very interesting. In many ways this is very similar to the model developed by F1000 (and its sister sites like Wellcome Open Research and Gates Open Research).

In line with your proposal, F1000, WOR etc operates as follows
a) researchers decide when (and what to publish)
b) everything – once it has passed a series of checks for plagiarism, adherence to ethical standards etc – is published
c) peer review happens post publication (reviewers are suggested by the author)
d) peer review is fully open (the reviews and the names)
e) articles can be updated as many times as the author wishes (the site supports versioning)

What do you see as the main differences between this model — which is already live and scalable – and APPRAISE?

]]>