This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the shutdown announcement for details.

•    double-blind, single-blind, non-anonymous
• risk of trolling: need for gatekeepers/moderators
• post-publication peer review (example: https://pubpeer.com/, http://retractionwatch.com/)
• what is the "final" version? is there such thing?
• possible solution: individual DOIs for every version
• change of workflow and the process of research
• how long should the paper be revised/reviseable?
• publication of reviews? alongside all versions of the paper -> transparency

•     getting credit for your work (e.g. https://publons.com/)
• monetaty incentives? good or bad?
• Awards (see below reviewers of the year)
• evaluation criteria at universities etc: typically publications, grants, teaching (not reviews/reviewing)
• service to the community (give and take)
• peer review not valued enough? Paying for peer review is probably not a good idea! But, peer review is done for the publishers/journals after all.
• business model(s) of publications/journals: publicly-paid researchers write, review, and edit for free; publishers sell their subscriptions to (public) libraries
• scientists should be in control of the publishing system! Get rid of the middle man (the publisher) ...
• moving away from the IF and the "traditional" metrics of impact: alternatives? e.g., https://www.altmetric.com/

• societies/associations as publishers (e.g., APA, DGPs etc.)
• necessary infrastructures? to publish & share papers, data, code, software, materials etc.

•     choosing/suggesting reviewer
• reviewing networks (schemes)

• But is subjective
• Alternative, journals with a list of just all peer reviewers for a year

• # of reviews
• speed of reviews
• word count

• example: journalreviewer.org; Quality Open Access Market (QOAM)
•