![Page 1: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Annotations on arXiv to support review
and comment
Simeon Warner
(Cornell University Library)
Peer Review Meeting, Washington DC,
May 15-16, 2014
![Page 2: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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)
![Page 6: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Commentary on arXiv
• Comment articles
• Separate discussion sites:
- CosmoCoffee
- Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics
- ...
- Facebook experiment
- Blogs and trackbacks
![Page 7: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
opt-in
authenticated/curated
external
(and tied to ORCID iD)
![Page 14: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060122/5596106e1a28ab4c678b4831/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Similarly to tie to formally published version. Bidirectional.
Q. When not appropriate? How to indicate?