| I wonder what are the challenges against implementing an open "near-full-automated" journal? - anyone can submit a paper. which is stored in the yet to be reviewed section. - only users with confirmed university affilation / users that published more than X papers can opt in to become a reviewer. - a reviewer is randomly selected to receive a review offer [in his indicated field] which he can accept or decline. - the user and the reviewer are than linked together anonymously and their correspondance is stored to be published with the paper under review section. - after that the reviewer makes a decision. - when enough reviewers have made their decision, the paper is marked as rejected, or moved to the published section according to a majority rule. - if the paper failed,the user then can choose to either: * (modify the paper = optional) and resubmit
* keep the paper public but indicate it failed the
review process
* delete the paper
- if the paper gets published,trusted users of the site can then leave feedback (through the UI) to indicate: * whether they could reproduce the results or not:
this might help alert the author if there are unclear
parts in thier methodology description.
* if the paper was helpful/intresting to them.
* add community questions under the paper, which can
be answered by the author / or a trusted user.
- authors can edit their work to correct in anytime they want [ allowing a faster correction of mistakes] , change history is kept to prevent abuse.from a programming point of view it doesn't seem that hard to do. so what are the relevant obstacles? |
If every scientist "defects" to open-access journal - everyone is better of. But if only a handful do that they will lose impact factor and will take a hit to their career.
Addition: This is commonly known as Nash Equilibrium[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium