Send Link mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Link digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first, then
review online? (Antony Barry)
2. Google Gemini (Antony Barry)
3. Re: Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first, then
review online? (Stephen Loosley)
4. Re: Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first, then
review online? (Tom Worthington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:07:05 +1100
From: Antony Barry <[email protected]>
To: Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
Cc: link <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LINK] Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first,
then review online?
Message-ID:
<CAECOtWzO9LhpbgUaz8PyOjTwBDNanDuT6xZ5yGetUNL=ee6...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 9:58?PM Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Will Chinese scientists make or break the uprising in academic peer-review
> publishing?
>
> A new publishing model is causing ructions in academia, and it could be
> China who decides the winner
>
ELife was new to me so I had a discussion with Perplexity AI about it then
asked for a summery which follows -
## eLife's New Refereeing Model: An Informal Report
eLife, a prominent scientific journal, introduced a revolutionary
publishing model in January 2023, stirring up both excitement and
controversy in the academic community. This report summarizes the key
aspects of the new model, its implications, and the measures in place to
maintain quality and handle controversial topics.
### The New Model: Key Features
1. All peer-reviewed papers are published as "Reviewed Preprints" on
eLife's website.
2. No traditional accept/reject decisions after peer review.
3. Each Reviewed Preprint includes:
- An eLife assessment
- Public peer reviews
- Optional author response
4. Authors can revise their preprint or declare it final.
5. eLife remains selective about which submissions undergo peer review.
### Goals and Controversy
The model aims to increase transparency, give authors more control, and
shift focus from journal prestige to content. However, it has sparked
debate:
**Pros:**
- Faster research dissemination
- More nuanced paper evaluation
- Increased transparency
**Cons:**
- Concerns about quality control
- Loss of Impact Factor
- Potential for system manipulation
- Reduced author accountability
- Confusion about article status
### Quality Assurance Measures
Despite the controversy, eLife has implemented several measures to maintain
review quality:
1. Selective review process
2. Expert reviewer selection
3. Collaborative assessments
4. Editorial oversight
5. Standardized vocabulary for assessments
6. Focus on constructive feedback
7. Iterative improvement process
8. Transparency through public reviews
### Handling Controversial Topics
eLife has also put measures in place to ensure fair treatment of
controversial subjects:
1. Careful expert reviewer selection
2. Collaborative assessments to balance viewpoints
3. Editorial oversight
4. Transparency through public reviews
5. Author response opportunity
6. Iterative improvement process
7. Focus on evidence-based evaluation
8. Facilitation of open scientific discourse
9. Emphasis on constructive feedback
### Conclusion
eLife's new model represents a bold experiment in scientific publishing,
aiming to address longstanding issues in academic peer review. While it has
generated significant debate, the journal has implemented various measures
to maintain quality and fairness. The long-term impact of this approach on
scientific publishing remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks a
significant shift in how we approach the dissemination and evaluation of
scientific research.
______
Unfortunately the summary process does not carry over the source material.
Tony
--
Mob:04 3365 2400 Email: [email protected], [email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:57:55 +1100
From: Antony Barry <[email protected]>
To: Link list <[email protected]>
Subject: [LINK] Google Gemini
Message-ID:
<CAECOtWxQrFmFa9WJu49zz0uPBbS+Rh0ZWm76GLBxqObtf_M=0...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
This is somewhat scary. I just read that Google Gemini was available for
the iPhone. I downloaded it, and to test it, I photographed an Apple magic
mouse and asked (via voice) what it was. No surprise there, it identified
it. I then took a photo of an Anzac biscuit on a patterned tablecloth and
asked what sort of biscuit it was and could it give me a recipe. Seconds
later, it identified it and then proceeded to display and read out a
detailed recipe for Anzac biscuits.
Tony
--
Mob:04 3365 2400 Email: [email protected], [email protected]
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:50:32 +1030
From: Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
To: "Antony Barry" <[email protected]>
Cc: link <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LINK] Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first,
then review online?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Indeed, many thanks Tony.
And so .. Perplexity AI seems to answer comprehensively and perhaps reach the
same notion .. many interesting on-going science paper developments/thoughts
may be written on online on-going scientific-paper recording merry-go-arounds
.. and so then where and when the science stop nobody knows ?
---- On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:37:05 +1030 Antony Barry wrote ---
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 9:58?PM Stephen Loosley [email protected]>
> wrote:
> Will Chinese scientists make or break the uprising in academic peer-review
> publishing?
>
> A new publishing model is causing ructions in academia, and it could be
> China who decides the winner
>
> ELife was new to me so I had a discussion with Perplexity AI about it then
> asked for a summery which follows -
> ## eLife's New Refereeing Model: An Informal Report
>
> eLife, a prominent scientific journal, introduced a revolutionary publishing
> model in January 2023, stirring up both excitement and controversy in the
> academic community. This report summarizes the key aspects of the new model,
> its implications, and the measures in place to maintain quality and handle
> controversial topics.
>
> ### The New Model: Key Features
>
> 1. All peer-reviewed papers are published as "Reviewed Preprints" on eLife's
> website.
> 2. No traditional accept/reject decisions after peer review.
> 3. Each Reviewed Preprint includes:
> ? ?- An eLife assessment
> ? ?- Public peer reviews
> ? ?- Optional author response
> 4. Authors can revise their preprint or declare it final.
> 5. eLife remains selective about which submissions undergo peer review.
>
> ### Goals and Controversy
>
> The model aims to increase transparency, give authors more control, and
> shift focus from journal prestige to content. However, it has sparked debate:
>
> **Pros:**
> - Faster research dissemination
> - More nuanced paper evaluation
> - Increased transparency
>
> **Cons:**
> - Concerns about quality control
> - Loss of Impact Factor
> - Potential for system manipulation
> - Reduced author accountability
> - Confusion about article status
>
> ### Quality Assurance Measures
>
> Despite the controversy, eLife has implemented several measures to maintain
> review quality:
>
> 1. Selective review process
> 2. Expert reviewer selection
> 3. Collaborative assessments
> 4. Editorial oversight
> 5. Standardized vocabulary for assessments
> 6. Focus on constructive feedback
> 7. Iterative improvement process
> 8. Transparency through public reviews
>
> ### Handling Controversial Topics
>
> eLife has also put measures in place to ensure fair treatment of
> controversial subjects:
>
> 1. Careful expert reviewer selection
> 2. Collaborative assessments to balance viewpoints
> 3. Editorial oversight
> 4. Transparency through public reviews
> 5. Author response opportunity
> 6. Iterative improvement process
> 7. Focus on evidence-based evaluation
> 8. Facilitation of open scientific discourse
> 9. Emphasis on constructive feedback
>
> ### Conclusion
>
> eLife's new model represents a bold experiment in scientific publishing,
> aiming to address longstanding issues in academic peer review. While it has
> generated significant debate, the journal has implemented various measures
> to maintain quality and fairness. The long-term impact of this approach on
> scientific publishing remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks a
> significant shift in how we approach the dissemination and evaluation of
> scientific research.
>
> ______Unfortunately the summary process does not carry over the source
> material.
> Tony
> --
> Mob:04 3365 2400 Email:[email protected],[email protected]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:46:23 +1100
From: Tom Worthington <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LINK] Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first,
then review online?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 18/11/24 13:07, Antony Barry wrote:
> ELife was new to me ...
Looks reasonable. The editors give papers a quick check, then anyone can
read them while thou through the review process.
One point to note is that eLife charges US$2,000 for a paper to be
published. This is similar to conference publishing, where you have to
pay to attend the event to have your paper published.
Some other publications have had Reviewed Preprints.
This still doesn't solve the problem of finding reviewers. The approach
I suggest would be to give reviewers a voucher for a free publication
(or a fast track process).
Another approach would be to have readers vote for papers, with their
votes weighted by reputation (based on what readers thought of their
previous publications).
--
Tom Worthington http://www.tomw.net.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20241119/12b132ca/attachment.sig>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
------------------------------
End of Link Digest, Vol 384, Issue 18
*************************************
