[LINK] Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first, then review online?

[Stephen Loosley]

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 stephenloosley at zoho.com> 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: antonybbarry at gmail.com, antonybbarry at me.com
 > 
 > 
 >