• Corpus ID: 3214559

TrueReview: A Platform for Post-Publication Peer Review

  title={TrueReview: A Platform for Post-Publication Peer Review},
  author={Luca de Alfaro and Marco Faella},
In post-publication peer review, scientific contributions are first published in open-access forums, such as arXiv or other digital libraries, and are subsequently reviewed and possibly ranked and/or evaluated. Compared to the classical process of scientific publishing, in which review precedes publication, post-publication peer review leads to faster dissemination of ideas, and publicly-available reviews. The chief concern in post-publication reviewing consists in eliciting high-quality… 

A conceptual peer review model for arXiv and other preprint databases

A new peer review model – Self‐Organizing Peer Review is proposed in which automated methods of matching reviewers to articles and ranking both users and articles can be implemented, and a strategic plan to increase recognition of articles in preprint databases within academic circles so that second generation preprints databases can achieve faster and cheaper publication.

HITS Hits Readersourcing: Validating Peer Review Alternatives Using Network Analysis

This work proposes a stochastic validation of the Readersourcing model and employs network analysis techniques to study the bias of the model, and in particular the interactions between readers and papers and their goodness and effectiveness scores.

Crowdsourcing Peer Review: As We May Do

This paper describes Readersourcing 2.0, an ecosystem providing an implementation of the Readersourcing approach proposed by Mizzaro, and describes the requirements, the overall architecture, and how the end-user can interact with the system.



Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science

An OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating, is proposed, which has the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and collaboration.

Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation

F1000, the online version of F1000, believes that most of the weaknesses of standard peer review can be linked to two core issues, first that it is conducted pre-publication and second that it are secret.

Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review

  • D. Herron
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Surgical Endoscopy
  • 2012
In a mathematical model of the peer review process, the accuracy of public reader-reviewers can surpass that of a small group of expert reviewers if the group of public reviewers is of sufficient size.

The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing

A first-ever case study in the plant sciences involving a PPPR of the Anthurium tissue culture literature deserves particular attention since it reveals how the loss of honesty and/or QC can result in the “academic corruption” of the literature, thus weakening the trust in its findings.

Strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review

  • E. Gehringer
  • Computer Science
    30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37135)
  • 2000
A peer grading system for review of student assignments over the World Wide Web and used in approximately eight courses in computing and electrical engineering, which allows authors and reviewers to communicate and mechanisms for encouraging careful review of submissions.

Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses

A peer-grading system for review of student assignments over the World-Wide Web and used in approximately eight computer-science courses, which has used the system to produce high-quality compilations of student work.

Crowdsourced judgement elicitation with endogenous proficiency

The main idea behind the mechanism is to use the presence of multiple tasks and ratings to estimate a reporting statistic to identify and penalize low-effort agreement, which rewards agents for agreeing with another 'reference' report on the same task, but also penalizes for blind agreement by subtracting out this statistic term.

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial

Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.

Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial

Although the possibility of posting reviews online was associated with a high refusal rate among potential peer reviewers and an increase in the amount of time taken to write a review, it is believed that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.

Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method

A scoring system is devised that induces honest reporting of feedback and proves to be a Nash equilibrium, which can be scaled to induce appropriate effort by raters and can be extended to handle sequential interaction and continuous signals.