Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeMay 11th 2013
    • (edited May 11th 2013)

    Another attempt at a post-publication review site with basic reputation scores is, which I think is definitely worth looking at. Now that we have a few attempts, it is worth summarizing their status. I am far from the most up to date on this, but so far I have noticed:

    • - by Ralph Furmaniak - announced on this site last year, seems to be dead today
    • - by Andrew Preston and team - not yet in beta, but being used - allows for publishing small “notes” as well as comments, data, …
    • - intended for the whole WWW, not just scholarly communication - as far as I can see, a lot of people are working on it, but I haven’t seen any prototype of what it would look like
    • - very new - apparently comments are restricted to those who have published in (traditional) peer reviewed outlets
    • - well established, based on “experts” and not crowdsourcing, only in life sciences

    Several journals are now encouraging post-publication comments - I am not aware of any in mathematics.

    Another site with a very crude post-publication review function (among other things) is Retraction Watch, which publicizes retracted papers (some of which, in my experience, are not well publicized otherwise).

    Ingrid Daubechies’ call on this site to discuss math annotation platforms has been replicated recently on Terry Tao’s blog, but the comments there are far inferior to what Math2.0 came up with. Could we perhaps make a checklist of desirable features (including particularly the mathematics aspects, but not limited to that) based on the comments here, and give some input to the above projects (and any others I have missed)?

    Another point - it seems inadvisable to me to attempt one system for the whole of scholarly communication, let alone the whole web. A diversity (but not too wide) of rating sites (like MR and Zentralblatt, with a few more) seems better, intuitively. Any predictions as to how it will all look in 10 years time?