On the future of peer review: LIBRE presentation at SpotOn London 2013

On Friday 8th of November, together with Michael Taylor we gave a 5-minute talk on the future of academic peer review also presenting the forthcoming platform LIBRE at the SpotOn 2013 event. We post the transcription of the talk that summarizes our vision on the future of peer review and academic publishing in general.


Thank you Duncan. It’s nice to be here in this interesting discussion about the future of peer review so what better way to present our ideas than to share with you our own vision of the future from a researcher’s perspective.

So, I will give you four points that best describe this future

1. Academic researchers post and license their work on open access libraries immediately (like physicists have been doing for decades with arXiv).

2. Authors personally invite any expert peer they believe can help them improve their work to formally review their articles, discover weaknesses and suggest improvements.

3. Authors respond to reviews and open commentary and create improved versions of their articles, and at any moment they are free to submit to one or more journals whose job is to promote the work to the relevant audiences.

4. Academic evaluation committees, instead of looking at where authors publish will judge what they publish based on the open assessment by the community of peers.

This future didn’t just pop into our heads. It is the result of years of discussions and debate and we know it is a vision shared by many. What’s more, this future may not be that far away. In fact, most of the infrastructure is already in place. Disciplinary archives and institutional repositories managed by librarians can already publish articles immediately after a brief quality check. What is missing is a peer review overlay service. This is what LIBRE wants to offer with a free, author-guided, transparent, open and truly independent peer review process.

So, LIBRE peer review is free because no one has to pay for it.

It is author-guided because academics who perform the research are in the best position to select the most appropriate reviewers, not only because they know their field, but also because they have the strongest motivation to improve their work.

It is transparent, which means that reviews are signed so that reviewers can get properly acknowledged for their work and also so that the community can control possible conflicts of interest.

It is also open, meaning that the full text of the reviews is visible, so that the community can moderate the process by rating reviewers’ performance.

It is independent from journals or other agents because we believe that like in democracy, separation of powers, evaluation from publication, is needed to avoid abuse of power, which is exactly what has happened with some commercial publishers.

To sum up, what we want is the self-organization of peer review directly by academic researchers without any intermediaries. It is evident that this ideal can only be brought to life by an open community of volunteer researchers, following the example of open source software. This is why we founded Open Scholar as an open-membership organization where any academic can join on an equal footing. And this is why LIBRE is being developed with open source software.

So we warmly invite you to join us as we move towards the official release of LIBRE’s beta version before the end of this year.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “On the future of peer review: LIBRE presentation at SpotOn London 2013”

  1. This may be interesting as well: a software platform that I have developed in the past weeks, motivated by my own experience as a PhD student:

    DocRev – http://www.docrev.org

    Briefly, the idea is to transfer the effort of reviewing documents to a crowd-sourced platform: a user provides feedback to other users’ documents, and in return obtains feedback for his own documents.

    My motivation stems from “yet another review” of a research paper of my own that I had already read many times for re-submission. At the time I was already so fed up of reading it that I’d rather read someone else’s work instead, hoping that another person would instead read my own work.
    Not only would that be refreshing, not to be reading always the same thing and maybe learn something new, but it would also be way more productive to catch problems in the document with a fresh pair of eyes.

    In fact, this is just a use case specific to research, but I believe the concept is applicable to any area and types of documents. Examples:

    – Send a formal letter to a lawyer, which requires familiarity with certain terms. Why not ask a law student or even a young lawyer to look at it in exchange for our own expertise?

    – Maybe you wrote a blog post or some meaningful content and would like to get some feedback before publishing it.

    – You have some work in progress in a specific area for which you know no one and would love some feedback.

    – Camera-ready research papers, which you have read countless times, but that probably still have some bugs/typos.

    – You are sending an application to a job offer / grant / project, and would love a review of it.

    If you are still reading, then I really encourage you to try it out:

    DocRev – http://www.docrev.org

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s