https:\/\/twitter.com\/stencila<\/a><\/p>\n Ongoing project<\/p>\n 1 \u2013 3 months for integrations described here as part of Stencila\u2019s ongoing development<\/p>\n Our aim for the #PrePrintSprint was to use it as an opportunity to add reviewing functionality to our platform for executable documents. So, since the kick off we\u2019ve been heads down doing a lot of coding. <\/p>\n We are happy to report that we managed to get most of our tickets moved from the \u201cTo do\u201d column to the \u201cDone\u201d column! We\u2019ve added the ability to mint DOIs for both preprints, and reviews as well as integrations to extract reviews from Google Docs and GitHub pull request reviews.<\/p>\n We found that there was more work involved in designing and implementing a workflow for requesting reviews and allowing potentially anonymous reviewers to accept or decline those. <\/p>\n We got some really useful ideas and suggestions from the breakout room at the sprint kickoff. We have only just got our development work completed to a stage where we can start seeking feedback from users. We\u2019d love to get some feedback from people after the sprint.<\/p>\n Yes, we have started exploring options for collaboration with PREreview. We are also talking to a journal who is interested in our integration with Github, including the ability to pull reviews from there.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Preprints are rapidly becoming an integral part of the modern scientific workflow, dramatically increasing the speed at which new research is disseminated. However, although one of the benefits of preprints is their availability for early review, the number of preprints with reviews is relatively low.<\/p>\n Part of the reason for the scarcity of preprint reviews is the burden it places on both authors and reviewers. Reducing this burden by reducing the friction in the workflow, for both authors and reviewers, provides an opportunity to both increase the number and speed of preprint reviews that are done and<\/em> acted upon.<\/p>\n Part of the reason for the scarcity of preprint reviews is the burden it places on both authors and reviewers. Reducing this burden by reducing the friction in the workflow, for both authors and reviewers, provides an opportunity to both increase the number and speed of preprint reviews that are done and<\/em> acted upon.<\/p>\n This project will aim to dramatically reduce the friction in,<\/p>\n To achieve this our approach will be to \u201cgo to where the users are\u201d and make use of existing platforms that already provide excellent facilities for reviewing alternative types of content but which are often overlooked for reviewing research articles.<\/p>\n Our envisaged workflow is:<\/p>\n We will measure the success of this project by monitoring:<\/p>\n Stencila\u2019s open source software, principally Hub<\/a> (integration with other platforms) and Encoda<\/a> (conversion between formats), already have the technical foundations necessary for this project. Some additional development and testing will be required for the API integrations between Stencila Hub and Crossref, Google Docs and GitHub. Refinements to format conversions may also be required.<\/p>\n User feedback, in particular one-on-one user testing of the workflows for both authors and reviewers, will be important for the success of this project. We will draw on our existing pool of beta testers for this. Endorsements by ASAPbio, funders and journals will help substantially with uptake.<\/p>\n The initial integrations with Google Docs and GitHub will be developed as part of Stencila\u2019s ongoing development and do not require any additional funding. If these prove successful funding may be needed for refinements and\/or integrations with other platforms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Organizer Nokome Bentley, Alexander Ketchakmadze & Colette Doughty from Stencila Website or social media links https:\/\/stenci.la\/ https:\/\/twitter.com\/stencila Current stage of development Ongoing project Project duration 1 \u2013 3 months for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2054,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-preprint-sprint-proposals"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3378"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3378\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3379,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3378\/revisions\/3379"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2054"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Current stage of development<\/h4>\n
Project duration<\/h4>\n
Update<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/QU3mbs2FdDI-g9FuaIQsdK8qdfMjdSCa6ulN5AMETYMzhllXtqIFew7a3WgyfCvBSr0WcQfDmxrwc_0SrL9brSu8-JKJCp3rHyor5pCR404EfrCNPHDUKWDyU3z3-DhZp28kTXL_-2.png\")
<\/figure>\nHow has your project changed?<\/h3>\n
Have you integrated any feedback received?<\/h3>\n
Have you started any collaborations?<\/h3>\n
Project aims<\/h2>\n
Background information on current practices<\/h3>\n
Overview of the challenge to overcome<\/h3>\n
The ideal outcome or output of the project<\/h3>\n
Description of the intervention<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Plan for monitoring project outcome<\/h3>\n
\n
What\u2019s needed for success<\/h3>\n
Additional technology development<\/h4>\n
Feedback, beta testing, collaboration, endorsement<\/h4>\n
Funding<\/h4>\n