Organizer
Thomas Guillemaud, Denis Bourguet and Marjolaine Hamelin (INRAE, France)
Current stage of development
Idea
Project duration
NA given the nature of the project (share and offer of an idea)
Update
How has your project changed?
We refocused on the importance of the evaluation history of preprints. Even the title of the project has changed in this way
The project has been simplified : new metadata, reference standard, donut
Have you integrated any feedback received?
Yes, the fact that CrossRef already has developped metadata about preprint’s peer-reviews
And the idea of moving from “Version of Records” to “Record of Versions”
Have you started any collaborations?
We’ve contacted Crossref about new metadata
we’ve been contacted by Asapbio about a technical Roadmap project
we’ve been contacted by PubPub about DocMap
We’ve been contacted by COAR to be a pilote case for their model and to include COAR in our use case and workflows
We’ve contacted Early Evidence base to include PCI in their peer-review service database
Project aims
Overview of the challenge to overcome
We believe that good incentives for reviewers (to review) and editors (to endorse) preprints would be:
- to have their names associated with the preprint as reviewer or as editor, eg to have their names in the reference of the preprint;
- to have their names associated with the endorsement, eg to have their names included in the endorsement statement.
The ideal outcome or output of the project
Details about the history of peer-review and endorsement of all articles (including preprints) should be as visible by readers as possible, always and anywhere, eg by the means of sophisticated electronic badges, a dedicated securitized part of the article itself and a new standard of citation format.
Description of the intervention
Development of the idea to be shared with motivated actors
The aim would be to reach a state where:
- Journals and reviewing services should mandatorily publish peer-reviews in open access with DOI and metadata;
- Journals and endorsement services should mandatorily publish their endorsement statement in open access with a doi and metadata and mention the reviews and reviewers that served as a basis for each endorsement.
Accordingly, each article (including preprint) would always be associated to the following metadata and sub-metadata (= metadata of reviews and endorsement statements):
- has been peer-reviewed by: [version of the preprint if preprint, round of review, name of the reviewer (or anonymous), doi of each review, name of the peer-review service] for each review
- has been endorsed by: [version of the preprint if preprint, name of the editor who endorsed the article, doi of the endorsement, journal or endorsement service name, based on peer-review *doi, name of the reviewer, name of the peer-review service*] for each endorsement
Those metadata should be as visible by readers as possible (eg via the API of doi provider)
Where? Wherever the doi appears in webpages
When? as soon as a doi with those metadata is issued
How? i) electronic badges (similar to those of altmetrics but dedicated to reviews and endorsements), and, ii) an automatic/securized/mandatory section in the article itself.
To reach this state as soon as possible, a new standard for citation format is needed. For example:
Smith et al. date of deposit, Title, preprint server, doi, ver x endorsed by *editor name* for *journals or endorsement service* based on peer-reviews by *names of peer-reviewers* for *peer-review service*, also reviewed by *names of peer-reviewers* for *peer-review service*
Plan for monitoring project outcome
Here, we only mention ideas. We do not want to develop ourselves the project. All the publication actors (eg doi providers, reviewing services, endorsement services (including journals) and search engines) interested in these ideas, can work together on a real project aiming at their effective implementation. We will continue to share our thoughts with all the persons or entities interested.
What’s needed for success
Additional technology development
i) interoperability between actors (eg see the proposal deposited by Kathleen Shearer (COAR))
ii) development of sophisticated electronic badges
iii) dedicated securitized part of the article itself
Feedback, beta testing, collaboration, endorsement
Global agreement by the main actors (preprint servers, journals, reviewing services, endorsement services, search engines, scientific databases, doi providers)
Funding
No funding requested. The purpose of this response is merely to share our ideas. Persons interested in pursuing this project may need funding.
Organizer
Thomas Guillemaud, Denis Bourguet and Marjolaine Hamelin (INRAE, France)
Current stage of development
Idea
Project duration
NA given the nature of the project (share and offer of an idea)
Update
How has your project changed?
We refocused on the importance of the evaluation history of preprints. Even the title of the project has changed in this way
The project has been simplified : new metadata, reference standard, donut
Have you integrated any feedback received?
Yes, the fact that CrossRef already has developped metadata about preprint’s peer-reviews
And the idea of moving from “Version of Records” to “Record of Versions”
Have you started any collaborations?
We’ve contacted Crossref about new metadata
we’ve been contacted by Asapbio about a technical Roadmap project
we’ve been contacted by PubPub about DocMap
We’ve been contacted by COAR to be a pilote case for their model and to include COAR in our use case and workflows
We’ve contacted Early Evidence base to include PCI in their peer-review service database
Project aims
Overview of the challenge to overcome
We believe that good incentives for reviewers (to review) and editors (to endorse) preprints would be:
The ideal outcome or output of the project
Details about the history of peer-review and endorsement of all articles (including preprints) should be as visible by readers as possible, always and anywhere, eg by the means of sophisticated electronic badges, a dedicated securitized part of the article itself and a new standard of citation format.
Description of the intervention
Development of the idea to be shared with motivated actors
The aim would be to reach a state where:
Accordingly, each article (including preprint) would always be associated to the following metadata and sub-metadata (= metadata of reviews and endorsement statements):
Those metadata should be as visible by readers as possible (eg via the API of doi provider)
Where? Wherever the doi appears in webpages
When? as soon as a doi with those metadata is issued
How? i) electronic badges (similar to those of altmetrics but dedicated to reviews and endorsements), and, ii) an automatic/securized/mandatory section in the article itself.
To reach this state as soon as possible, a new standard for citation format is needed. For example:
Smith et al. date of deposit, Title, preprint server, doi, ver x endorsed by *editor name* for *journals or endorsement service* based on peer-reviews by *names of peer-reviewers* for *peer-review service*, also reviewed by *names of peer-reviewers* for *peer-review service*
Plan for monitoring project outcome
Here, we only mention ideas. We do not want to develop ourselves the project. All the publication actors (eg doi providers, reviewing services, endorsement services (including journals) and search engines) interested in these ideas, can work together on a real project aiming at their effective implementation. We will continue to share our thoughts with all the persons or entities interested.
What’s needed for success
Additional technology development
i) interoperability between actors (eg see the proposal deposited by Kathleen Shearer (COAR))
ii) development of sophisticated electronic badges
iii) dedicated securitized part of the article itself
Feedback, beta testing, collaboration, endorsement
Global agreement by the main actors (preprint servers, journals, reviewing services, endorsement services, search engines, scientific databases, doi providers)
Funding
No funding requested. The purpose of this response is merely to share our ideas. Persons interested in pursuing this project may need funding.