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.
    • CommentAuthorBen Webster
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2012

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sure looks to me like the SPN already exists, and (surprise!) doesn’t have any mathematicians using it. It has a horrible name, and a bit more emphasis on social media than I would like, but Peer Evaluation sure looks like it hits all the important points as described in Chris’s paper. I’m sure if other mathematicians started using it, it would quickly be a great and useful site, but not many people are there yet (as far as I could tell, a few mathematicians have signed up, but no one has yet to write a review of anyone else’s article).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMarc Harper
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
    • (edited Apr 26th 2012)
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMarc Harper
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
    • (edited Apr 26th 2012)

    The sites mentioned by other people in the thread "selected paper networks".

    Are their more "competitors" ?
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMarc Harper
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
    • (edited Apr 26th 2012)
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorpmelchior
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2012
    Dear Marc,

    I am the academic who runs I came across this thread by checking my server logs...
    I had a good look at the SPNet plan, an impressive document by the way, which has drawn a lot of attention in this forum. I see quite some overlap of our goals, but similar to you, I do see differences, too.

    The main driver for PaperRater is not evaluating impact, although it might be used for this purpose. My main motivation is to bundle the community knowledge that arises from discussion in journal clubs and among colleagues in a form that is persistent and helps readers and authors (and possible also referees). As a second main driver, PaperRater should be an efficient tool to deal with the constant influx of papers. Looking at those that were most highly commented/rated during the past several days, is clearly helpful in this regard (and this is where I see the main overlap with SPNet). Another element is the organization with tags, which brings PaperRater closer to a bibliography management tool.

    Regarding your comments above, I did not state that PaperRater is (already) a replacement for peer review, it should augment it. For the time being, we are often hired on the basis of the peer-review papers we produce, and thus tied to this way of publishing, if we like it or not.
    The question of threaded comments seems to be a matter of taste and not of principle to me. On validation: If you mean that anybody can sign up and leave comments and ratings, yes that's true. I don't see an easy (as opposed to massively time-consuming) way of introducing any form of validation. And I'm not even sure that I would introduce one if I could. Maybe you can I can tell me how you want to solve this and what for.

    It seems we both and plenty of others on this forum are interested in going beyond peer review. I just finished a major update of the site, which introduced plenty of improvements, including a much nicer interface and LaTeX for comments, a highly demanded feature. It does serve the entire arXiv, so you would not be tied to astrophysics, which currently constitutes the biggest user group. Why don't you have a look and tell me what you think/like/dislike. I would be curious.