It is certainly consistent with the post-publication processBecause I do like balanced approaches instinctively, it seems for me, it would be optimal if the post-publication process would complement the pre-publication validation, but it would not replace it completely. The scientists should simply maintain both approaches. The problem is their matrix is not symmetric: only published results can become a subject of public review, whereas the anonymous review can be applied both before, both after publication.
Nikolaus Kriegeskorte argues that scientists, not publishers, are in the best position to develop a fair evaluation process for scientific papers.
However, it is unclear how exactly such a system should be designed
completely transparent, post-publication, perpetually ongoing
In the first step after a manuscript is published online, anyone can publicly post a review or rate the paper.
In the second step, independent web-portals to the literature combine all the evaluations to give a prioritized perspective on the literature. The scoring system could simply be an average of all of the ratings.
and remains fossilized in pre-publication phase
In the first step after a manuscript is published online, anyone can publicly post a review or rate the paper. In the second step, independent web-portals to the literature combine all the evaluations to give a prioritized perspective on the literature. The scoring system could simply be an average of all of the ratings.
Oop, you have no time neither patience to build and maintain such a black lists? Just use Edd Witten's (or some other celebrity's) lists
marble89
Nov 14, 2012