Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment

757 views
643 views

Published on

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 experiments

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
757
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment

  1. 1. Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment Simeon Warner (Cornell University Library) Peer Review Meeting, Washington DC, May 15-16, 2014
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Fast Fair 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)
  5. 5. Commentary on arXiv • Comment articles • Separate discussion sites: - CosmoCoffee - Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics - ... - Facebook experiment - Blogs and trackbacks
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. opt-in authenticated/curated external (and tied to ORCID iD)
  9. 9. Similarly to tie to formally published version. Bidirectional. Q. When not appropriate? How to indicate?
  10. 10. That’s all folks... simeon.warner@cornell.edu @zimeon

×