Content of review 1, reviewed on August 07, 2017
Although Leonid Schneider raised some issues on the firm ScienceOpen and on J.P.Tennant affiliation that does not reduces the interest and importance of this paper. Its truth that the fact ScienceOpen was mentioned 18 times much more than other similar platforms was not the most appropriate option. In spite of that minor flaw the authors makes a very good case on the importance of peer review. The authors “propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review”. However, its not clear how the proposal will be able to solve it. Especially how it can help solve the problem of the publication culture in which to actively engage on peer review activities is much much less important than to have enough papers published on Science or Nature http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/08/salt_institute_defends_itself_against_sexism_by_invoking_a_sexist_metric.html It does not really matter if decoupling between publishing and peer review is achieved. It does not really matter if there are appropriate platforms to give merit to peer review or what are the best peer review models. What really matters is only how can we change academia merit system so it can finally start to give merit to peer review.
© 2017 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Tzovaras, B. G., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., Fatima, N., Poblet, M., Isaakidis, M., Irawan, D. E., Renaut, S., Madan, C. R., Matthias, L., Kjær, J. N., O'Donnell, D. P., Neylon, C., Kearns, S., Selvaraju, M., Colomb, J. 2017. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6: 1151.