Thomas Guillemaud, Denis Bourguet and Marjolaine Hamelin (INRAE, France)<\/p>\n
Idea<\/p>\n
NA given the nature of the project (share and offer of an idea)<\/p>\n
How has your project changed?<\/strong><\/p>\n We refocused on the importance of the evaluation history of preprints. Even the title of the project has changed in this way<\/p>\n The project has been simplified : new metadata, reference standard, donut<\/p>\n Have you integrated any feedback received?<\/strong><\/p>\n Yes, the fact that CrossRef already has developped metadata about preprint\u2019s peer-reviews<\/p>\n And the idea of moving from \u201cVersion of Records\u201d to \u201cRecord of Versions\u201d<\/p>\n Have you started any collaborations?<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019ve contacted Crossref about new metadata<\/p>\n we\u2019ve been contacted by Asapbio about a technical Roadmap project<\/p>\n we\u2019ve been contacted by PubPub about DocMap<\/p>\n We\u2019ve been contacted by COAR to be a pilote case for their model and to include COAR in our use case and workflows<\/p>\n We\u2019ve contacted Early Evidence base to include PCI in their peer-review service database<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n We believe that good incentives for reviewers (to review) and editors (to endorse) preprints would be:<\/p>\n Details about the history of peer-review and endorsement of all articles (including preprints) should be as visible by readers as possible, always and anywhere, eg by the means of sophisticated electronic badges, a dedicated securitized part of the article itself and a new standard of citation format.<\/p>\n Development of the idea to be shared with motivated actors<\/strong><\/p>\n The aim would be to reach a state where:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Accordingly, each article (including preprint) would always be associated to the following metadata and sub-metadata<\/strong> (= metadata of reviews and endorsement statements):<\/p>\n Those metadata should<\/strong> be as visible by readers as possible<\/strong> (eg via the API of doi provider)<\/p>\n Where?<\/strong> Wherever the doi appears in webpages<\/p>\n When?<\/strong> as soon as a doi with those metadata is issued<\/p>\n How?<\/strong> i) electronic badges (similar to those of altmetrics but dedicated to reviews and endorsements), and, ii) an automatic\/securized\/mandatory section in the article itself.<\/p>\n To reach this state as soon as possible, a new standard for citation format is needed. For example:<\/strong><\/p>\n Smith et al. date of deposit, Title, preprint server, doi, ver x endorsed by *editor name* for *journals or endorsement service* based on peer-reviews by *names of peer-reviewers* for *peer-review service*, also reviewed by *names of peer-reviewers* for *peer-review service*<\/p>\n Here, we only mention ideas. We do not want to develop ourselves the project. All the publication actors (eg doi providers, reviewing services, endorsement services (including journals) and search engines) interested in these ideas, can work together on a real project aiming at their effective implementation. We will continue to share our thoughts with all the persons or entities interested.<\/p>\nProject aims<\/h2>\n
Overview of the challenge to overcome<\/h3>\n
\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
What\u2019s needed for success<\/h3>\n
Additional technology development<\/h4>\n