Loomio
Thu 7 Dec 2017 10:26AM

How should people identify themselves when giving feeback/review to EarthArXiv preprints?

SG Stéphanie Girardclos Public Seen by 394

When giving online feedback to a paper, there is a risk that people hide behind a fake identity. Should an Orcid author identification be compulsory for feeback? or a verified institutional email? any other idea?

MDF

Matteo De Felice Thu 7 Dec 2017 10:30AM

Totally agree with you, however not sure about the options here...a "verified institutional email" does not sound very good and very restrictive, Orcid would be ok for me but don't know how much is used around the world...

HG

Han Geurdes Thu 7 Dec 2017 10:53AM

Feedback and ORCID. This sounds ok to me.

However, what about clever remarks of people without ORCID?

E.g. I live in an agricultural area. Suppose, there is a paper that claims that certain levels of ground water are not affecting natural habitat.

My neighbor doesn't have an ORCID. He is a notorious bird watcher. One day I tell him... listen Jim , the ground water, according a paper on EarthArxiv .....

He notes that something is wrong with the claim. After the change in ground water level around here, e.g. the red-yellow-and-blue merula isn't nesting in the neighborhood. Then he will be in need of my ORCID friendliness to deliver his message to the discussion of the paper.

He would say something like .. Wait a minute y'all professors. I noticed....

So ... no ORCID no "wait a minute .... " from people on the ground.

I made it all up of course. .... This neighbor's name is Hank. :-)

Cheers

A

Andy Thu 7 Dec 2017 1:12PM

ORCiD sounds like a good idea. My impression is that it is fast becoming a fairly standard way of uniquely identifying researchers when publishing. There is ResearcherID as well, but I think ORCiD has gained more traction with journals.

CJ

Christopher Jackson Thu 7 Dec 2017 8:30PM

I think you all know my opinion about this; all reviewers should disclose their names, and all reviews should be open and published with manuscripts. HOWEVER, I know others have competing views, which often seem quite subject specific (i.e. the geologists I roll/fight with are only very rarely anonymous when reviewing papers). If we require disclosure of ORCID, which I agree would be good to use, then, essentially, there is no choice of anonymity if you wish to comment on a paper. The people who want to be anonymous will thus not comment on papers, which I don't massively have an issue with...Thoughts?

HG

Han Geurdes Thu 7 Dec 2017 8:58PM

ORCID ok. However, I think it is the vulnerability of the proponent / the proposed at issue. Therefore, I would like to propose that a comment can't be acceptable without giving full disclosure of why the comment is made.

So, .... it can't be. Agreed Christopher! But it must be.. Agreed, because the use of ORCID will always disclose what assumptions are behind the comments.

The basic problem is an open discussion and not me taking my lawnmower to a tank battle.

LU

Leonardo Uieda Fri 8 Dec 2017 12:01AM

I agree with @christopherjackson3 (3?). Having the ORCID seems good and removes the barrier of people having to create yet another login. Even if we decide on anonymity, having the ORCID be mandatory for logging might be a good idea. The author might not know who the reviewer is but the admins should. That way, they can block abusers who might otherwise just make a new login. That might help deter trolls.

Institutional emails might not be a good idea because it would block any scientist with a unconventional career path or who is taking a break.

CJ

Christopher Jackson Fri 8 Dec 2017 2:25PM

Yes. That might work @leonardouieda. Although some people may still be hesitant if they know anyone knows who they are. But it could be worth trialing it...

SL

Sabine Lengger Fri 8 Dec 2017 4:21PM

Hi, I agree with a mandatory Orcid for login. I think the identity of the reviewer though should only be available to admins if moderation is necessary. I think peer review is more rigorous when the identity of the reviewer is not known. It could potentially descend into an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" system otherwise, and also, the opinion of more junior or female colleagues might not be taken as seriously as the opinion of senior colleagues.

HG

Han Geurdes Fri 8 Dec 2017 4:58PM

Correct. So, we have:

  1. ORCID

  2. Email

  3. Other id

All known to the admin. What about..

  1. only severe criticism when counter paper is produced as a requirement.

My experience is that the opponent acted upon the believes of the standers by with verbalisation such as... it is clear that. But the person didn't deliver any clear proper mathematical support.

E.g. reiteration of the theorem that I attacked without mathematical support. The ...this is impossible ... objection. The "experts claim that it cannot be done". Look at arXiv 1704.00005 to see what was needed to get through. It was possible.

So, ... framing the proponent as a fool can only be avoided when, in my case, real proper maths is provided. That is with a paper. Not with blabla to convince important bystanders.

Sorry for the long post. However, everybody can imagine how an opponent can get away with bull shit argument.

Han Geurdes,

Geurdes data science kvk64522202

Member of the UNGGIM Private Sector Network.

..............

Read my solution of the Clay millennium Navier-Stokes problem at:

http ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 ):// ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 )www.tandfonline.com ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 )/ ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 )doi ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 )/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311835.2017.1284293 )

Read our solution to Bells theorem at:

https ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00005 ):// ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00005 )arxiv.org ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00005 )/abs/1704.00005 ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00005 )

Van: Sabine Lengger (Loomio)

Verstuurd: vrijdag 8 december 17:21

Onderwerp: [EarthArXiv] How should people identify themselves when giving feeback/review to EarthArXiv preprints?

Aan: [email protected]

TN

Tom Narock Fri 8 Dec 2017 6:14PM

The Center for Open Science (COS) has just released it's latest roadmap: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rE9kfMIYhGwFqvzPC5_iM73dry53jJfbgtFvqVkATXg/edit?ts=5a289939#slide=id.g2bf07f93ed_0_0 In the roadmap they indicate they are looking at https://web.hypothes.is/ as a means of preprint annotation. COS doesn't have a delivery date yet for the annotation service, though. I saw somewhere else that hypothes.is was working with ORCID to integrate services such that annotations would include the user's ORCID ID. Although, I'm not sure of where they are in terms of development.

Load More