Post #2433617
2024-03-29 21:10 UTC
@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.
Replies (1)
-
@mike@sauropods.win 2024-03-29 22:45
@plektix@mathstodon.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org @PeerCommunityIn@ecoevo.social Yes, making post-publication review happen is a problem. On the other hand, so is making PRE-publication peer-review happen. It only works because we have a class of people (handling editors) who are tasked with soliciting people to do it. There's no reason that can't be done post-pub instead. (That's what eLife does now.)