annotations on arxiv to support review and comment
DESCRIPTION
Short presentation at Hypothes.is/Sloan workshop on Peer Review. Gives some arXiv background, some past and existing work relating to commentary and review on arXiv, and plans for annotation experimentsTRANSCRIPT
Annotations on arXiv to support review
and comment
Simeon Warner
(Cornell University Library)
Peer Review Meeting, Washington DC,
May 15-16, 2014
4th largest “publisher”*
Publisher New articles per year
Elsevier ~260k (2012, [1])
Wiley ~180k (2013, pers. comm.)
Springer ~150k (2009?, [2])
arXiv ~100k (2014, projected)
Taylor & Francis ~60k (2010, [3])
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-(%23168)%20Elsevier%20submission.pdf[2] http://www.springer.com/us/partners/society-zone-issues/springer-s-author-satisfaction-program/4496[3]http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/?p=1816* if we are happy comparing apples and oranges, and publish = to make public
Cost and effort
• 2.75 FTE admin, 2.5 FTE developer
• 149 volunteer moderators
– correct classification, appropriateness
• mgmt. + advisory boards
CY2014 budget $885,987
=> budget per new article < $9
FastFair
Efficient
(Let’s not get hung up on things like open access for now. For the current discussion that
is just an obvious part of fair and efficient)
Commentary on arXiv
• Comment articles
• Separate discussion sites:
- CosmoCoffee
- Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics
- ...
- Facebook experiment
- Blogs and trackbacks
Comment and review (by peers) is an essential part of
scholarship
The question is whether our fast, fair and efficient scholarly communication infrastructure
can assist with these elements of the process
arXiv experiments
1. Allow users to see annotations on arXiv articles or formally published versions of same article– handle arXiv formats and versioning
– ids: arXiv <-> DOI <-> ADS <-> Inspire
2. Allow interaction with authenticated, external annotation services to support overlap journals or journal clubs– filtered access
opt-in
authenticated/curated
external
(and tied to ORCID iD)
Similarly to tie to formally published version. Bidirectional.
Q. When not appropriate? How to indicate?
