Post #2433616

2024-03-29 20:39 UTC

@plektix@mathstodon.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org "This is interesting. But science can't just all be "preprint and done", can it? As flawed as it is, peer review on some level is needed, no?" I am genuinely not convinced any longer than this is true. I always took it for granted, as we all do. But in my own experience, undergoing peer-review costs me more that it gets me. I'm on the fence.

Replies (2)

@plektix@mathstodon.xyz 2024-03-29 21:10

@mike@sauropods.win @villavelius@mastodon.online @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org I'm definitely on board with post-preprint review. It should be the norm. I'm cautiously optimistic about elife's "reviewed preprints" model, and I like the @PeerCommunityIn@ecoevo.social model too. But organizing the post-preprint review process is surely worth something, no? I would love to see a model where reviewers and editors are fairly compensated for this.

Open ##2433617
@villavelius@mastodon.online 2024-03-30 08:53

@mike@sauropods.win @plektix@mathstodon.xyz @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org The current system combines and conflates two primary functions: 1. Knowledge dissemination; and 2. Career-, reputation-, influence-enhancement (IF, citations). #Preprints (if possible with post-pub peer review) do the first best; pre-pub peer-reviewed journals currently help perhaps more with the latter. And the latter provides publishers with a hold on researchers.

Open ##2433622