tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9119793002820072645.post6821100193198492486..comments2024-02-24T00:26:09.233-08:00Comments on Research Practices and Tools: SciPost: the right tool for commenting arXiv articles?Sylvain Ribaulthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01458212114354400137noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9119793002820072645.post-77227345032159598332021-08-02T18:25:37.621-07:002021-08-02T18:25:37.621-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dörtyol haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12412055777466665462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9119793002820072645.post-39934326518593370012016-07-24T22:56:14.182-07:002016-07-24T22:56:14.182-07:00Many thanks for the observations, comments and sug...Many thanks for the observations, comments and suggestions.<br /><br />A few clarifications:<br /><br />SciPost also goes much beyond commenting on papers (both preprints on the arXiv and papers published anywhere at any time). The initiative also aims at starting a set of high-quality journals, with a very robust open form of refereeing.<br /><br />SciPost is also by no means limited to theoretical physics. Fellows of the Editorial College will be recruited from all fields of physics (we are currently recruiting). They will carry the decisional power on publishing. The work of Fellows is in fact relatively limited and not very time consuming, and focuses on the processing of submissions (inviting referees, and formulating an editorial recomendation at the end of a refereeing round). Vetting of new contributors, of requests for commentary pages, of comments etc. is a one-click affair. This vetting part is indeed a means of ensuring high-quality content, and to avoid blog-style degeneration.<br /><br />Let me address your suggestions:<br /><br />- arXiv trackback: <br />arXiv has been contacted about this, but no answer has yet been received. We will strive for seamless linking with it, and hopefully we will hear from them soon.<br /><br />- auto emails:<br />This is currently being implemented, with opt-in automatic email facilities for all forms of delivered content. <br /><br />- versions:<br />Indeed a Commentary pertains to a given version (this applies only to preprints of course). If other versions of the same preprint are discussed, a link to the other versions appears in the top part of the page. <br /><br />- categorizing/tagging:<br />The reason why different version of preprints are kept separate is that reports and comments can lead to substantial modifications (improvements hopefully!) in the manuscript from one version to the other. Keeping things compartmentalized thus helps visualize the `history’ more easily. Reports are also expected to be more substantial than comments, and are displayed more prominently. Author replies are also `attached’ to the relevant object in order to give prominence to author responses and make the flow while reading more linear. The idea of using more tags is a good one, which we will consider.<br /><br /><br />On open peer review, more precisely the principle of removing material associated to a rejected paper: note that this remains the authors’ discretion: if the authors want the reports, comments and replies to be kept online or forwarded on to a subsequent journal, then SciPost will do so. The default of removing content is as a sign of respect for the authors: open refereeing is quite stringent, and can lead to very substantial rewriting. Authors might feel that any subsequent version of their paper is sufficiently `divorced’ from the previous that older critical material might affect objective evaluation of the new version. In any case, SciPost is positioned very much on the side of openness: if the community prefers to have material always remain online, then we will do so.<br /><br />The problem of attracting contributors is indeed the greatest challenge in the beginning phase. Most critically, attracting submissions for the journals to help establish them is high priority. Members of the community who share the values of SciPost and who are willing and able to give it a try, should!<br /><br />Ease of use will be improved. Note that registration is a one-off thing which also needs to occur on other platforms (remember that only active, professional scientists are allowed to be contributors on SciPost; this requires a verification step). One-click opening of Commentary Pages is a good suggestion which will be implemented. We have implemented the vetting procedure for all content, in order to prevent any possibility of abuse of the system, but perhaps this is indeed not needed. Time will tell.<br /><br />Thanks for looking into it!<br /><br />J-S Caux<br />Jean-Sébastien Cauxhttps://scipost.orgnoreply@blogger.com