Moving science beyond closed, binary, static journals; a proposed alternative; how the 'Effective Altruist' and nontraditional nonprofit sector can help make this happen

[Gavin (Gavin Taylor - Note: I no longer use this forum.)]

Welcome to the forum @daaronr Glad to see you moving forwards with this (n.b. I’ve given David some advice on this previously)

@daaronr

What would be the best ‘layer on top’ tool/tools/interface for reviewing and feedback that allows a quantitative component, measuring the credibility, interestingness, and clarity of each paper or project in a way that universities, policymakers, and grantmakers could value? Can PREreview be adapted to this in the ways I propose? What do you think of ResearchHub as an alternative for this? (Please also see my ‘Airtable of evaluated tools’ linked in the doc)

@cooper, @antonio.schettino, @pcmasuzzo, @sivashchenko I think you might know this space better than I do, any suggestions? I know there are a lot of preprint review initiatives but am not sure of any that allow for quantitative rankings.

@daaronr

How can we get support and funding (or ally with existing people doing this) for putting together ‘pseudo-editorial processes’

Not sure about where to get funding, but the editorial management of preprint reviewing reminds me of what James Fraser did recently:

Considering campaigns to post journal reviews on preprints

James has also taken this idea one step further: when asked to guest edit a paper for a journal, he instead organized an independent review process, inviting his own reviewers. With the consent of all reviewers, he then posted the entire package of reviews as a comment on bioRxiv.