The document discusses SitePoint's open peer review process for content. It outlines that SitePoint uses GitHub and GitLab repositories for each content channel, with content closed by default but open for review upon request. The peer review process involves in-depth guidelines, active communication through issues and Slack, and a rule that content requires reviews from at least three reviewers over two weeks. The results reported are higher payouts for authors, more traffic and advertisers for the site, and noticeably higher quality content.

1. Open Sourcing Content
Peer Review’s Effect on Quality

2. About me
● Bruno Skvorc, Croatia
● PHP Editor, SitePoint.com (PhpMaster.com)
● Developer Evangelist at Diffbot.com
Twitter: @bitfalls
G+: +BrunoSkvorc
Github: Swader
Email: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com

3. Open Source Content
● Open Source is more than Code

4. Peer Review
Reviewers need to be:
● qualified
● respectful
● genuinely interested
● traditional model = meh
● open access model = meh

5. Peer Review
SitePoint:
● a magazine, not a blog
● all posts paid
● budget vs. traffic matters
● expenses--, quality++ … how?
● not a fit for traditional peer review
● not a fit for “gold open access”

6. SitePoint’s Peer Review
● Github / Gitlab to the rescue
● one repo per channel
● PHP channel pioneer

7. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Closed by default,
open by request

8. SitePoint’s Peer Review
● in depth guidelines
● semi-strict rules (best practices, etc.)

9. SitePoint’s Peer Review
● no moar Trello plz ew
● active communication
● more issues and Slack,
less email

10. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Mass pings discouraged but allowed
Individual pings preferred
Categories Table
● competencies
● preferences
● notes

11. SitePoint’s Peer Review

12. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Review types:
● skim and comment
● typo fixes (suggestions or pull requests)
● other fixes (suggestions or pull requests)
● opinions
● alternative approaches
● etc...

13. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Rule of three
● three or more reviews
● two weeks
● urgency

14. SitePoint’s Peer Review
● rewards
● regular Authors
● gamification (soon)
● automation (sooner)

15. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Results

16. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Peer review gave us:
● higher payouts
● appreciation towards authors
● more traffic, fewer expenses
● more advertisers
● noticeably higher quality

17. SitePoint’s Peer Review
Closed doors = lame
Openness with content = great
Collaboration on content = greater
Potential gain > risk of content theft

18. Contact
Twitter: @bitfalls
G+: +BrunoSkvorc
Github: Swader
Email: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com
Joind.in: https://joind.in/14461