Poll Created Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:24PM
Peer review process Closed Fri 1 Sep 2017 4:41PM
Ideas about the peer review procedure to be implemented in the epijournal
Results
Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit) | 22.5% | 18 | |||
|
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable | 15.0% | 12 | |||
|
Double blind | 13.8% | 11 | |||
|
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article | 13.8% | 11 | |||
|
Double non-blind | 12.5% | 10 | |||
|
Single blind (blind reviewers) | 10.0% | 8 | |||
|
Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above) | 5.0% | 4 | |||
|
Reviewers should be paid | 5.0% | 4 | |||
|
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article | 2.5% | 2 | |||
Undecided | 0% | 58 |
26 of 84 people have participated (30%)
Deleted account Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:57PM
@loicsalles Good point about the "double-blind" process. It looks like I cannot remove this choice from the poll.
Poll Created Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:24PM
Peer review process Closed Fri 1 Sep 2017 4:41PM
Ideas about the peer review procedure to be implemented in the epijournal
Results
Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit) | 22.5% | 18 | |||
|
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable | 15.0% | 12 | |||
|
Double blind | 13.8% | 11 | |||
|
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article | 13.8% | 11 | |||
|
Double non-blind | 12.5% | 10 | |||
|
Single blind (blind reviewers) | 10.0% | 8 | |||
|
Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above) | 5.0% | 4 | |||
|
Reviewers should be paid | 5.0% | 4 | |||
|
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article | 2.5% | 2 | |||
Undecided | 0% | 58 |
26 of 84 people have participated (30%)
Poll Created Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:24PM
Peer review process Closed Fri 1 Sep 2017 4:41PM
Ideas about the peer review procedure to be implemented in the epijournal
Results
Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit) | 22.5% | 18 | |||
|
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable | 15.0% | 12 | |||
|
Double blind | 13.8% | 11 | |||
|
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article | 13.8% | 11 | |||
|
Double non-blind | 12.5% | 10 | |||
|
Single blind (blind reviewers) | 10.0% | 8 | |||
|
Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above) | 5.0% | 4 | |||
|
Reviewers should be paid | 5.0% | 4 | |||
|
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article | 2.5% | 2 | |||
Undecided | 0% | 58 |
26 of 84 people have participated (30%)
Loic Salles Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:52PM
I don't see how to organize a double blind review as the paper has to be uploaded on an open-archive before submitting to the Epi-Journal.
Nicolas Feld Thu 6 Jul 2017 9:48PM
The last option contains too much information and too little choice. By definition, non-significant results should not be acceptable. However failed replications are very interesting when justified, explained, and perhaps confronted to other results.
Sébastien Baguet Fri 7 Jul 2017 7:30AM
Double-blind is maybe the most neutral review process but unrealistic here as pointed by Loic. The forum is a very good idea.
Jonathan Barés Fri 14 Jul 2017 6:20AM
Maybe we could consider replacing author name by just lab's name
Vladislav A. Yastrebov Fri 7 Jul 2017 10:06AM
Isn't it a crazy idea to pay reviewers? Who will pay them? : )
A better idea will be probably to keep internally a list of reviewers and announce every year three best reviewers in terms of contributions quality and number of reviews (weighted norm).
Deleted account · Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:26PM
Interesting post from computer science:
http://yann.lecun.com/ex/pamphlets/publishing-models.html