Loomio
Wed 14 Jun 2017 9:24AM

Reviewing process

VA Vincent Acary Public Seen by 404
DU

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 VA MM DU SG SN JB R FG VAY EH Y LS AT NF MG SB NC PG
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable 15.0% 12 MM DU SG SN JB FG VAY EH CT MG SB NC
Double blind 13.8% 11 MM SN JB S EH Y CT DY HH APD PG
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article 13.8% 11 VA DU SG R VAY EH J NF SB NC PG
Double non-blind 12.5% 10 VA SG JB R VAY J CT AT NC PG
Single blind (blind reviewers) 10.0% 8 VA VAY S B CT DY NF MG
Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above) 5.0% 4 DU LS CT SB
Reviewers should be paid 5.0% 4 SN S EH Y
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article 2.5% 2 JB R
Undecided 0% 58 AN SO MP NB BR GP EC J GL ED MP AB L MCL J M GL HK RQ S

26 of 84 people have participated (30%)

DU

Deleted account Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:26PM

Interesting post from computer science:

http://yann.lecun.com/ex/pamphlets/publishing-models.html

DU

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.

DU

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 VA MM DU SG SN JB R FG VAY EH Y LS AT NF MG SB NC PG
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable 15.0% 12 MM DU SG SN JB FG VAY EH CT MG SB NC
Double blind 13.8% 11 MM SN JB S EH Y CT DY HH APD PG
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article 13.8% 11 VA DU SG R VAY EH J NF SB NC PG
Double non-blind 12.5% 10 VA SG JB R VAY J CT AT NC PG
Single blind (blind reviewers) 10.0% 8 VA VAY S B CT DY NF MG
Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above) 5.0% 4 DU LS CT SB
Reviewers should be paid 5.0% 4 SN S EH Y
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article 2.5% 2 JB R
Undecided 0% 58 AN SO MP NB BR GP EC J GL ED MP AB L MCL J M GL HK RQ S

26 of 84 people have participated (30%)

DU

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 VA MM DU SG SN JB R FG VAY EH Y LS AT NF MG SB NC PG
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable 15.0% 12 MM DU SG SN JB FG VAY EH CT MG SB NC
Double blind 13.8% 11 MM SN JB S EH Y CT DY HH APD PG
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article 13.8% 11 VA DU SG R VAY EH J NF SB NC PG
Double non-blind 12.5% 10 VA SG JB R VAY J CT AT NC PG
Single blind (blind reviewers) 10.0% 8 VA VAY S B CT DY NF MG
Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above) 5.0% 4 DU LS CT SB
Reviewers should be paid 5.0% 4 SN S EH Y
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article 2.5% 2 JB R
Undecided 0% 58 AN SO MP NB BR GP EC J GL ED MP AB L MCL J M GL HK RQ S

26 of 84 people have participated (30%)

LS

Loic Salles Thu 6 Jul 2017 1:52PM

Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above)
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit)

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.

NF

Nicolas Feld Thu 6 Jul 2017 9:48PM

Single blind (blind reviewers)
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit)
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article

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.

SB

Sébastien Baguet Fri 7 Jul 2017 7:30AM

Procedure to be decided by the authors (among the choices above)
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit)
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable
Attach a moderated discussion forum to every article

Double-blind is maybe the most neutral review process but unrealistic here as pointed by Loic. The forum is a very good idea.

JB

Jonathan Barés Fri 14 Jul 2017 6:20AM

Double blind
Double non-blind
Reviews should be publicly available (and citable and reviewers get credit)
Non significant results and failed replications are acceptable
Attach a non-moderated discussion forum to every article

Maybe we could consider replacing author name by just lab's name

VAY

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).

Load More