Comment/Feedback section in article page

Possibly a good idea, but would it mean then that comments would have to be moderated? I wonder what more established pre-print servers do?

Good point. I don't know what other preprint means do, but I think one can avoid the need to moderate comments if only registered users can post. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and if they are unfounded or aggressive, they will be bounced off by other users. Personally, I think the community should move to an entirely open and accessible review-rebuttal process, where hidden interests cannot be hidden anymore - this might be a step in that direction!

David, I agree. From my experience with hot headed debates on pubpeer, moderation (of the discussion tone of voice helpfulness of the remarks etc etc) would be a very good idea. A shameful example of a derailed discussion can be found on FQXi between Joy Christian and Richard Gill.

Ohp, I see... Flying knives over there! Well, it seems like moderation is the way to go if comments are allowed - still I think comments should be implemented

Indeed, discussion moderation & actual removal from discussion or cooling down period when the (neutral ... is difficult) moderator thinks fit.

This is an interesting idea. I don't think this is a trivial thing. Who is going to moderate? Are they volunteers, or paid site moderators...or primarily bots?

It may make more sense, at least for the time being, to use existing infrastructure for reviews and comments. For example, I could post a summary of an EarthArXiv article on Medium (or any blogging type site) where comment functionality is already integrated. In this scenario, what is important are the links. Obviously a link from the Medium article/post to the EarthArXiv preprint (I assume this would use the DOI) would be useful. However, a link from EarthArXiv to the discussion area (i.e. further discussion here: --link to Medium post--) would also seem appropriate.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Useful indeed. And I'm fully supportive. @leonardouieda was looking into Authorea(?), which I think could provide this functionality. Howeverm, I recall that Hypothes.is may be another option, with someone called Heather Staines telling me they had had some discussions with OSF about this. Maybe you can confirm @mattspitzer?

@christopherjackson3 Yes, we are actively exploring a hypothes.is integration right now. we should have some estimates of when this would be available soon. You are also correct that moderation of comments is not insignificant and this is something that I know bioarxiv spends ample time on. Alternatively, arvix.org does not have commenting on preprints. So I envision that any integrated commenting engine will be optional for OSF hosted services, for as others point out, commenting through an external service with two-way links could be ideal for groups not interested in providing moderation on comments directly.

I thought Jon had taken that over. If not, I can contact them.

I stumbled on this (https://osf.io/mk3ny/) whilst looking for the OSF roadmap to see what's in the pipeline, but it doesn't seem to be what we need...