Alright. So thank you for saying, um,
I want to introduce three exceptionally talented graduate students,
all PhD candidates from different disciplines and, um,
to editors from the Journal of Public Knowledge. So
Stephanie George ACAS, Jennifer Lawrence and then the founder
and co founder, the co founder and CEO.
Excuse me of the widower, Josh Nicholson. So
I'll ask you guys to introduce yourself a little bit
more that we can continue to kind of talk through
journal issues. Um, so she mentioned Josh Nicholson
. I'm 1/5 year graduate student in life sciences.
Study cancer to be very broad. Um, I
think the original discussion that we had about open access
kind of strayed away from open access and into peer
review and a lot of different things. Um,
so I think a lot of these issues are not
new, but just open access. And I think
a lot of them are problematic for actually the goals
of what scientists are trying to do. Solve problems
. Um and so I'm trying to change that by
making things more cost effective and transparent from start to
finish. And I think one of the biggest goals
of the winner is to get younger students, grad
students, even undergrads publishing earlier. Now, I
know not everyone should be publishing earlier, but I
think there should be that option where they have this
and they shouldn't be limited by money. And in
some cases, they're not like Virginia Tech. But
in other ones, they very often are, um
so I'd be happy to talk more about the model
. Or should I let them? Yeah. Okay
, OK, I'm Jennifer Lawrence, and I'm 1/4
year PhD candidate in the aspect program. And I've
had I've had experience on to open access journals here
at Tech One is Public Knowledge Journal, which I'm
currently the co editor in chief with Stephanie on,
um, and I've been in several different positions.
Um, articles, editor and journal manager as well
in that one. And then I, um,
kind of revived Spectra. The Aspect Journal, which
started about five years ago and then kind of petered
off and had a lot of outstanding but promised article
. So I kind of, uh, I guess
put together a board and have handed that off successfully
to the next cohort of aspect students now who are
very enthusiastic about keeping that journal going. So I
guess one of to issue one issue that I thought
was brought up in the last section was the sustainability
issue. And it seems like that was the issue
that at least two of our Panelists had run into
in terms of, you know, not being able
to contact anybody or people kind of, you know
, just tailing off and doing other things. So
how do we how do we end bed sustainability or
longevity into these open access enterprises? Um, so
I'm I'm definitely George Access. I'm 1/5 year PhD
candidate in the School of Public and International Affairs.
This is my second year serving on the editorial board
of public knowledge. Um, last year I was
associate articles editor, and I worked mostly with peer
review, um, soliciting peer reviewers and walking graduate
students through the process of learning how to review a
paper which I think maybe deserves a little bit more
attention as well. I think it's a largely neglected
area in academics, at least in social sciences.
I don't know how it is in in, um
, hard sciences, but, um and then this
year, I'm the co editor in chief and Jen
and I have taken it upon ourselves this year to
really try to increase the visibility of the journal to
increase readership. And, as she said, really
focusing on longevity and sustainability, which I think is
a I'll kind of echo that is a big problem
, potentially an open access. So what happens if
we walked away tomorrow? There's there's no physical copy
of of any of the articles that we've published.
Um, and so unless we're maintaining that, what
happens to that knowledge afterwards? Um, so that
I think that's a new challenge. Maybe that arises
with open access and kind of the digital age as
well. So think of sustainability. I also think
of finances. How much students should be charge for
public knowledge. Journalists completely free. So we don't
We don't volunteer basis. We have a zero budget
. Um, so this is done on goodwill and
this, you know, we're, um so we
are hosted at the center for, um, digital
discourse and culture. Um uh, Tech. We
have also been offered service space at the graduate school
and at the library. So these costs are borne
upon. I guess a larger um I guess the
group, but for the process of learning how to
go about a journal and that sort of thing,
Um, everybody who's brought on board does it in
terms of just volunteer ship and wanting to get absolutely
yeah, basically, literally Friday Journal named Satya.
Mhm. So this is part of the reason why
we've taken it kind of as our initiative this year
to reach out to the graduate school in particular,
um, to try to form maybe at least a
more formal partnership between. Right now, we're kind
of a free floating autonomous entity. We're not tied
to any department, um, which has some benefits
it was initially conceived of in that in that way
, because it allows us a lot of autonomy as
graduate students. In this process, we don't we
have an advisory board of faculty members, but again
, we meet with them once the semester, Um
, for advice. Basically, nobody's telling us what
we have to do. The downside of that is
obviously, that we don't have financial any financial assistance
. Um, And again, there's a lot of
turnover in our editorial board just by the nature of
us being graduate students. So it's very. It's
been a huge challenge for us to form an identity
for the journal and to maintain their identity. We're
hoping to get maybe something like a G a ship
or something like that, which would, I guess
, somehow offers some renewed remuneration for the job.
It's not customary in the humanities and social sciences to
charge for articles. In fact, I've never been
asked. Yeah, I've never been asked and nor
would I. I don't think I mean, maybe
because it's just a difference. Um, but I
guess the fees are embedded into the subscription. Um
, so I've never been asked to pay to publish
. The winner will charge basically so that we can
be sustainable and also so that we can attract more
submissions and explore different things. Like if we want
to change things, Um, what? It's going
to cost us$100 and I think this is relatively
arbitrary, but I think$100 for papers enough to
sustain this site as well as grow and add on
different features. Um, and so I have some
money raise much like everyone else raises money reaching out
to reach people that have a lot of money.
Um, and I'm putting all of this, so
I'm not taking a salary for any of this.
Um, but I will charge for this, and
you're very right. It costs money to get the
website up. Unless you can use some of these
, uh, one is already available, but if
you're trying to do something different, you have to
start from scratch. What? I want to talk
to us. The library? Yeah, So that
would be nice. So maybe I'll give a little
bit of background. So my journal that I'm trying
to start it's not strictly open access. I would
say it's a little more radical even than that,
because I think open access to me. I mean
, is it should be common sense. Almost.
You should be able to read it. I think
all these other issues with peer review are getting tacked
onto open access. And that's not fair because there
are predatory journals out there. But this does not
equate to open access. There is a very good
open access journals that are not predatory. So a
lot of these issues that we're talking about peer review
are not problems of open access. The problems of
normal journals. And so I think these need to
be solved just as much as open access. And
really, I mean, I'm starting from scratch,
so I'm trying to solve them all at once.
And so what the window or does or will do
eventually will host papers immediately. So say you're done
with your work you uploaded to the site. No
peer review anything, Um, and then you collect
peer reviews after that and what is called post publication
Peer Review. These reviews are open to read by
everyone, and they're always going to be associated with
the paper PDS that I've designed have little buttons saying
, Read the reviews and write the reviews. So
when you're reading the paper, you can click this
button, say, you're reading on a tablet,
you're reading it paper. You will be able to
click the button. You can go back and read
the reviews or write a review yourself, and I
imagine if you're reading the paper, you may be
more or less qualified to review it. Maybe not
, And then these reviews themselves will also get reviewed
. Much like a lot of the different commenting systems
. Yeah, so similar similar to I mean,
the idea I've kind of taken from is Amazon.
You see different reviews. There's a top negative in
the top positive review, and I think these are
informative. And I think it's crazy that the reviews
are just lost. I mean, because I've written
reviews in my boss. They're long and they're very
informative, and they're very useful, and then they
never read them. Um, so really, I
think this should change. Um, the cost should
change$100. I think students can afford this.
Um, but then it's not free. So it's
just spammed because I think if we had no cost
, we get spammed. You may even get spammed
with 100. Uh, but I think the current
system is not really keeping out bad work. It's
just delaying. I mean, there's so many journals
you can submit over and over and over, and
you finally get in. And I think this is
actually more dangerous because if you submit to eight journals
, can you rejected seven times? Those negative reviews
are never seen, whereas if you just accept everything
in principle, you come at you come at it
with more of a skeptical view until you can actually
read the reviews. So this is really well,
you solicit reviews. So the authors will do this
. I'm also open to working with. There's new
companies starting up that are strictly pure view and they
organize reviews. They're not publishers, and they want
to work with publishers. So there's one called Liberate
that I've talked with, and I would accept reviews
with that except reviews from anyone. I think as
long as the reviews are open and attached to the
paper. This is, in my opinion, the
best way to evaluate the papers, to read it
and then to read the reviews associated with it.
There are no reviews. Then you can read it
. I don't know if this is a trustworthy paper
or not. I also think over the life span
of the paper, more reviews accumulating. This is
going to be another metric that will be useful as
opposed to just citation numbers. You can have structured
reviews, which is what the winner will have for
different prompts. How, I don't know how accurate
is this our different questions of that nature, Um
and I think I mean there's already progress towards this
That's apart from the winner. The NIH Pub Med
recently has started a pilot for post publication reviews basically
a centralized place where you can comment on any paper
that's in public it. And I think this is
a very good step. Um, I don't know
why it's taking so look. And just to kind
of piggyback on that quickly, One thing that Jen
actually mentioned before was mm. The possibility of potential
of these kind of open access journals to, at
least in the social sciences and humanities. Um,
open up the space for alternative perspectives, which again
, the culture, um, of publishing and social
sciences is you I, for example, as a
critical political theorist I'm not going to even attempt to
submit. I know what journalists I'm not going to
submit my work to. It doesn't matter how good
it is. It's just not the culture of the
journal. Um, you know who's on the editorial
for? You know who the editors are. You
know what their work is, and it's just if
they don't match, they don't match. And so
a lot of times, this is this is a
problem for, um again, if you're trying to
get tenure. Um, and perhaps the big name
. The big name journals in your fields are just
not necessarily what you're doing. The culture doesn't match
. And so, I think, at least public
knowledge what we're trying to create a space for at
Virginia Tech and hopefully eventually, more broadly, is
some kind of disk or some kind of debate,
some type of discussion that takes place online. Um
, we do do peer reviews. We do,
you know, do double blind peer reviews before publishing
. But we also have a feature on the website
for, um, kind of blog and response as
well. So there are spaces open for non peer
reviewed publications. Um, where we can kind of
have these these more commentary, comment, commentary style
, um, debates going on that I think allows
for these alternative or could potentially allow for these alternative
perspectives. That might not be, um, that
might not be openly accepted in some more traditional venues
within a discipline. You curious within a new format
opened reviews with because the publication review and commentary.
So, um, front packer and Packer have this
really wonderful set of scholarly ethics and how education will
be guided. Do you plan on incorporating some of
the waste of sheep? Yeah. I mean,
I don't know of those. I'm open. Someone
asked the same question to me and I said,
There's a standard. You know, I would love
to see it. And if it makes sense,
incorporated. I've even talked with someone from Ploce about
this, but they are a little tight lipped on
what they were doing. Um, but I think
you're right, because there should be some kind of
structure to what you're looking for, especially if your
goal is to accumulate reviews. They're all everywhere.
It's hard to summarize them. Uh huh. So
I mean, I'm organizing them as best as I
can do on my own, but I would be
very curious to see what they've outlined. I think
it's a good point because it's one. How to
structure review and also the expectations is probably communication.
You will became mhm when providing credible back in,
at least in the so the Chronicle of has here
. The commentary is really personal between the humanities and
social sciences. And so they articulated a set of
use that I find that really hopeful that she Yeah
, I think allowing kind of like a system where
the reviews can be voted up or down, kind
of limit this. I mean, there's always going
to be people saying bad things, but I don't
think you're going to go out of your way to
find some kind of obscure publications. Say something bad
about it, which is what most publications are.
So there's this new website. It's called Puck Pier
. Basically, you can take in any deal you
want in life sciences and comment on it anonymously.
Uh, it's already solved. A fugitive. There's
a paper and sell their peer reviewed in five days
. Someone went on pub here and said, There's
a huge error in this should not have been published
and then they were forced to make changes. Um
, and all the comments that I've read on there
, they've been, you know, to the point
they're not calling anyone names or anything like this.
And I think this may be in the humanities,
more people can understand it. But if you're going
to talk about stem cells, it's not your everyday
person trolling on their, uh, Don't worry about
it. Less. Yeah, so, um,
Stephanie, actually worked on this issue for us last
year. And it was we had an issue on
public knowledge where we were getting really, um,
unbalanced reviews back. So some would be very thorough
, while others would just be, like, a
sentence or two saying like, Yeah, I think
this is great or no, I think this is
trash. Um, so that made it really difficult
to give comments that to the author. So,
um, maybe you can talk. Yeah, I
started these, um, as we were soliciting pure
reviewers. And so I guess we should also mention
that public knowledge is explicitly an interdisciplinary graduate graduate student
journal run by graduate students. Um, we published
work that was done by graduate students. So if
you have, um, defended your dissertation and getting
your PhD, you can you can publish work that
you that you completed while you were in school.
And so we have an added challenge of trying to
make disciplines. And again, we have submissions from
engineers and we have submissions from philosophers, and we
need to make those pieces speak to one another.
Um and so we I started these peer review workshops
, Um, because I realized at some point along
the way in my own education, nobody ever taught
me one. Nobody ever taught me how to write
a journal article and to nobody ever taught me how
one day I would be reviewing other articles. Um
, and I think that's a disservice that's done to
graduate students again. I can't speak to all disciplines
, but I know in the social sciences, nobody
ever sat me down and taught me what this publishing
thing was about. And so, um, we
we spoke about in this peer review workshop, um
, the the ethics of peer review, the culture
of peer review, the courtesy of critique how it's
supposed to work. Um, and the feedback I
got from students across disciplines was that again, this
was something that really, largely has been underrepresented in
the educational experience that they had as graduate students.
And so I think this is a service that,
um, having the ability to participate in these publication
processes is is an educational experience, not just as
an author, but also as an editor. As
a reviewer, um, it makes the process more
transparent so that when I go to submit something to
the American Political science review. I know what's happening
on the other end because that process usually is very
, um, opaque. Have a question for Josh
. Especially since you've been through the suspension funding the
library as well as starting in the journal. Mhm
. I was curious whether your turn will try to
become a member of the S P A or things
like that. Because even$100 as low as it
is compared to PCs, the graduate student probably won't
want to pay it. And our vibration mentioned find
will. And we have criteria that we need to
use before you can get them. Boys pay that
. Yeah, So I would love to join these
, but they're based on the criteria My model would
never make it. And I think this is a
disservice to any kind of change in the system because
my journal is not going to be indexed by Pub
Med because Matt has a strict criteria. And if
you don't adhere to that criteria, it's limiting the
growth of the journal. So it really limits any
structural changes to the publication system. By this I
can't join. You need an editorial board of all
these old scientists. Basically, this is one.
So there's no editorial board on there. Um,
and I think that's pretty much the biggest thing.
But all these criteria, you know, a lot
of them are just set for how journals have always
been. They leave very little wiggle room for how
journals could be. So you have to have a
peer review process in place where my peer review process
occurs after the publication and people will probably have problems
with this. But my retort always is to refer
to archive, which is, I mean, a
pre print repository, which is up right away.
And I really think archive is great. It's free
. You post it up there immediately and you can
read it and you can send comments. My criticism
of them is the comments are not open and they're
not attached. And then they just go down the
same street. Uh, after everything was already done
, you know, he's already reviewed. So ultimately
, if the Windward was ever successful, I'd like
to kind of morph into something similar to that where
you don't charge the authors and you make money off
something else. Because the community has grown so large
, but that's not going to happen right out of
the gate for sure. Well, I mean,
one problem with the early OA journals charge part of
the process or had article processing charges was that it
looked a whole lot like pain for publication. And
so the way that the externals handle that was that
before you go through pure of you first and you
only Hey, this a PC. Once you've gone
through the period of process and these are like,
totally there's a wall between these two processes. Only
after you go through fear of you, then you
know you pay the ABC with your model. I
think, you know, you sort of tearing down
that wall little bit look so well, more like
your pain. And yet you are You're paying for
basically buying into this system for sustainability. I think
this is better than saying you're paying for peer review
. Peer reviewers are not paid, right? So
the journals are recouping process, but yeah, I
mean, I think a lot of the traditional journalist
could charge a lot less. I mean, I
would be very curious to see how my you know
,$1200 goes for 800 word piece. It's really
shocking, Um, and I think I can do
it differently, Which is why I'm setting up a
system$100. I think this is enough to sustain
that paper. People may criticize that, but I
think a lot of people kind of see already what
they're paying. I think more and more peer review
The more and more people are really analyzing peer review
as it is now, more and more they're seeing
the flaws. So ultimately, I think it's going
to switch post publication, which I think is a
real real peer review as it is now. You
publish it, and then when the entire community can
read it, that's when the real review occurs.
2 to 3 people saying This is good or not
. Um, it is good, but it's not
always right making slow things. How how can you
Really? Yeah, so you can work with different
ones. Clocks. I'm sure you guys are familiar
with that. There's another one I heard of.
Perma dot c c Do it for me and I
do it for you. So when you drop yes
. I mean from my understanding you join this.
And if you go out of business or if I
got hit by a truck the next day, it's
still going to be there. And so these different
archival services are not based on me, you know
, being able to be there. Otherwise they wouldn't
need them, right? Well, but no,
you're joining with the understanding that you will be reciprocating
services. Yes. Can you reciprocate those services?
I don't know the specific details of all of what
needs to be done, but we can. I
mean, we reciprocate services. That's that's cloths lost
. Yeah. I mean, I've also heard of
a new one Perma dot c c. I don't
know if you've heard of this, but this is
looking for new scholarly ways for it, for things
to remain. Um, I think we'll be able
to meet all these different things. I mean,
this is a concern, but we have money,
and I think money can solve a lot of problems
in the search. Well, yeah, I'm thinking
about fascination. Well, yeah, I mean,
I guess I don't understand it as much as I
should, um, but from my understanding, the
whole point of these archives is if you cannot sustain
yourself, the work is still still maintained, right
? Is that right? This is Yeah. I
mean, isn't this what this is? What?
This is what it says at least. Yeah,
but but yes. So the servers are I mean
, I don't have my own service. That will
be at different universities from what I understand, like
seven different ones. But it's a complicated process.
Five or six journals on this now all promised to
sustain your journal and new promise to sustain their.
And so how does this sustained by by hosting or
by what do you mean by sustain? Mhm.
Yeah. I hope your issues. You host my
issues, network problem, that line. And they
can go to your side. I can get large
. Mm. But it's not going to look like
it's completely separate, right? It's just hosting.
I mean, if if the winner went out of
business, you want to, our nature went out
of business. You want to go to science,
and there's nature articles. But in the meantime,
are you able to do this to reciprocating services for
these five or six other journals that are required that
if you join class. You will be part of
this now. He expected. I believe so.
Yeah, I don't know what the limitations would be
against that. We have servers that I can't do
this have a sort of a different question. I
appreciate the crowd sourcing interview model that hasn't how creativity
, especially the amount of sharing that goes on,
a capability, my goodness, can authors. And
what offers medical machines to revise their work after they
received comments and then selected? Is there ever a
final coffee? In other words, funny in that
something that is constantly changing and all that is never
part. So there is a chance to revise it
so paper will be posted. It will be open
for reviews for a month to three months, depending
upon what the author chooses. Based upon the reviews
we receive, you can make changes and then upload
the finalized version, which will be assigned to the
Y. The initial version will still be there,
but it's just not excitable version of it. It's
basically the whole history of the papers there, and
it's out for everyone to see. Uh huh,
as transparent as possible deserve mhm, mhm, maybe
less access to websites Almost final has published changes to
this island since October 23 2013. If you have
two versions there still like, you know, the
students are okay, Mom, I have a three
. Not too excited. Something that changes. I
was hoping that students I used the non finalized version
. I mean, so this will be very apparent
when you read it. We're not going to try
and hide it that it's under review. In fact
, we're going to try and advertise that it's under
review to collect reviews. Um, there's a similar
model already in use by F 1000 research, which
is index and has tons of money. They have
the different versions of the paper up there, and
they even have their reviews attached. I really liked
what they're doing. I think they're just charging.
Still too much.$1500. I think it's too
much. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean
, that's where are you going to find time to
do your cancer research? So hopefully most of this
this is the point Is that trying to do away
with it without It's kind of like published Do it
yourself publishing right? But I think it's already happening
. I mean, the scientists are suggesting reviewers and
those reviewers are reviewing them to editors coordinating it.
But why can't a scientist coordinate this? Um,
and then people may say, Oh, well,
then it's just going to be your buddies are all
reviewing it. Well, it's always open to review
so anyone can review it if you disagree with it
. But, you know, say so loud.
I don't know how it has limited sometime, but
I feel quite passionately about what I'm doing, and
I think I'm doing it for the right reasons.
The goal is to integrate new knowledge, which would
, I guess, ultimately answer the question. Well
, I have a question for both models, obviously
, you know, because at least the big journals
they've all got me, they have a very,
very tiny something very useful. And then you kind
of as you go down to your quality. We
have thematic calls for papers, So we currently have
an issue under review for resilience, and then that
will be published in December. And then we just
put out a call for papers for, um on
the practices and challenges of interdisciplinary T. So we're
trying to not just talk about what interdisciplinary the means
, but how is it actually practiced? And how
is that different from discipline to discipline? Um,
and what are the problems that arise with that and
that will be published next May? And so we're
We're trying to find new ways to, um,
I guess get submissions. We don't accept everything that
we receive. And I guess we've tried to find
some creative ways of, Of, of garnering,
more submissions, including locating courses or professors who are
interested in teaching on a certain topic and kind of
, um, calling research papers or book reviews that
have been written for that class, Um, and
offering pure review feedback in addition to the feedback that
the instructor offers. Um, but honestly, it's
it's a lot of work. It's hard work.
A lot of it is word of mouth grassroots style
, reaching out to, you know, our cohort
or advertising on the Internet. Or just, you
know, various various, um, list serve basically
sending out to everyone that we can, um,
and so I think that these are just kind of
again. This is part of the challenge of starting
a journal, and it's never. Our aspirations are
not necessarily to ever have a lot of name recognition
as a graduate student journal, but were we still
think that we provide a valuable service in terms of
allowing graduate students to have a voice, um,
in a published the published way. So I do
a lot of social media marketing Twitter. There's a
lot of interactions with professors. We have 500 followers
. We haven't published anything, so I'm quite happy
about that. Facebook has been not good. No
one really follows there. But I think marketing is
very important. And I have set aside a budget
for marketing, which is basically, I mean,
a lot of it's social media Twitter, my blog
weekly, on different things that the winner will use
different problems that the winner will fix and really word
of mouth. And I think the more and more
I blog and the more and more interaction, the
more it grows. But it's primarily through social media
, which does take a lot of time, But
I mean, I like direct blogs, so that
is why I'm doing it. I'm not trying to
get rich off of it. You and you kind
of always the journalist, formerly critical. Okay,
proceeding from your graduation from you know I am.
Are you understand? I'm not, man. You
are exercising managed. But you know, there's always
this whole idea of it's written in black and white
, but again, without adding other, do not
interact. Yeah, we have. We have a
multimedia section as well. Where we publish photographs,
interviews, um, artwork. I thought about doing
like, um maybe teaming up with a graduate student
conference at you know, that's that's being run,
um, opportunity, Tech. And then, um
, publishing the some panels. So a video of
some panels along with the papers. Um, interestingly
enough that there has not been We have to really
, really try hard to find multimedia submissions. And
I don't know, I can't remember the last month
. I think it was two issues with that,
but again, it's not the normal. Yeah,
what is it again? Black and white numbers that
much, but that's not because or copyright research products
have permits published because they're not always done particular.
Yeah, but there are some really interesting models for
Israel. Mhm projects here with you. So nine
, which is the 19th century ever Yes, thanks
. There's one more people oriented and the 18th century
and their digital projects like Blake Archive or Variety.
There was a project that appeared you both on the
continent. Thank you. Mhm. Yeah. Possible
space. But things really? Sure. What long
time to figure out how to? He said What
? Yeah. I mean, I think it's one
of the potentials that, like open access journals have
because there's space. Therefore, you're not. You're
not confined in the same way as a traditional journal
might be to publish multimedia. Um, but,
yeah, it's been a tough kind of thing to
get some submissions for them. Question for Josh.
I think I asked you this private conversation ones,
but one of my concerns was, How does a
person who submits an article to the winner At what
point is there? Article published in Make It Say
Okay. I mean, what I'm what I'm worried
about is that someone close an article on there.
It's one review, and then there are three months
is up or whatever. You know. They have
to answer to the tender promotion policies and all these
other things, especially since it's public. It's not
going to look. Yeah. I mean, this
is a big obstacle obstacle. I think this is
a bigger obstacle than trolls. This is getting people
to actually review it. I think the authors are
going to be motivated to get reviews and generally reach
out for them. Um, but I think you're
right. I mean, if there is one review
and that paper was still up there, I think
it should be read with that one review over time
. It can still accumulate reviews, but at that
point I'm calling. The article is finalized. You
can't just make changes. Otherwise, it's just a
moving goalposts for the entire life of it. Three
months. So there's going to be, uh,
an open part where the reviews are there. And
then there's a revision. So the paper will say
under revision, and then it will ultimately be finalized
and will be assigned d o I. It's basically
the same process, just kind of putting it all
out. Yeah, that's that's kind of where we're
finalizing it. Just so it's so excitable island.
So let's let's that he Well, yeah, I
mean, it's going to allow the time. It's
not based on reviews. You're right. um,
this would be a good thing to have. And
so f 1000 does something similar where they have received
enough reviews and then it becomes indexed in Pub Med
. Um, don't know the right people to do
this, and they do. But I like that
system. And I think ultimately, you know,
when the authors submitted, if they choose to submit
to this, they're going to be active in this
. And I've seen this with pre prints online people
posted on their blog. There's tons of discussion on
these pre prints saying with Pierre J. They utilize
pre prints. There's a lot of discussion. People
are happy to, uh, comment on it or
even review it. And it's all done very cordially
and also very effectively from what I've seen, Um
, but I think it's I mean, when you
go up in front of a tender committee, I've
never done it, and I don't know if I
ever will. There's a lot of things that you
have to say to them that are not good for
science. I mean, having reviews on your paper
is a good thing. But submitting to this journal
because it has a big name is not necessarily a
good thing for science. Are you a bad thing
? Um and so I'm trying not to judge or
trying to design the windows based on meeting tenure.
Uh huh. 10 years and demands because I think
it was just produce the exact same thing we have
now. Um, so hopefully I think things are
starting to change their post publication peer reviews becoming mainstream
. They called the new commenting in NIH mainstream.
Now, um and I think a centralized place to
comment is great. I'm actually worried it's going to
take a little bit away from the window, or
but I think the window or I mean, it's
going to utilize this. And people are going to
see this as a valuable system, not as a
complementary or an alternative system, but really kind of
the real peer review. It's just more formalized help
, something that both models of cash bonus. But
at this unstated, I'm concerned that scholarship is just
talking to itself and a smaller and smaller closed.
So both of these journalists do a lot of work
to break that out. And that creation. I
also think she mentioned how important it is to be
able to see how the review process works. You
can't do that in most places, and I think
it's very valuable for students to read the reviews.
Say I didn't think of that because I haven't been
around. This is much so I think I mean
, even if the winner or doesn't work, I
think reviews need to be out there. To me
, that should just definitely happen, and I think
it's becoming more and more of the case. I
want to go back to the comment I made earlier
about names, and there's been, you know,
the question of whether you could real names sign into
reviews and that sort of thing, or even two
papers when they are under review. I've read,
yeah, various places that you know. There's concerns
about taking that double blind process away. Suddenly you've
got names, you've got ethnicities. There's possibilities for
racism and sexism. We've got names, attached,
reviews so concerns. I mean, most peer review
that I'm aware of is not double blinded, single
blinded so they know who it is and they can
be as racist or sexist as they want because it's
closed and really there's no one to account for this
. So I think transparency is still the best thing
. Someone says this article is horrible because it's written
by a woman. Well, this is, in
my opinion, pretty easy to shoot down, you
know, and that looks bad. But currently it's
closed and you can say things. You probably won't
be that blatant in it, but you can say
things and I mean, there's really no accountability because
it's not out there for everyone to see. You
can make it public. But then this just may
hurt your chances later, committing to that same clothes
system, something that I'm really interesting about. That
discussion is, and this is very subject specific.
Within the digital humanities, this issue just came out
. There were two students and two faculty one and
everyone who are working out this Colonial studies communities created
a blood based summer school where social media so log
splitter everywhere they were invited to do a special issue
for you just and in the mid point of the
purity they had one set of criteria for review.
And then the journal changes and the discussion because both
the nature of the community and the nature of feelings
as being prejudice. It asks us to women of
color, working on very deep social issues around.
They're going to and so exploded on Twitter. And
so they promise of transparency, basically was then brought
back to the journal. That's it. And we
talked through the period of the process. There's a
very interesting moment that sort of getting to what you're
saying is that if it's blind and the whole line
top, really particularly into the emergent scholarship within visual
projects, your name, there's no such thing.
Yeah, it's not. He cannot be business associated
and even small research issues My back, you know
, they tried to find 2020 you know, everybody
is. You have? Well, I wrote a
song long time ago. They bring back. You
are just very There is stop. All right Now
the area of research from conferences. Oh, so
let's talk about that. A couple months ago,
let me know. So this might be so it
was Yeah, she's back. Not just have been
accessed with transparency in the research process. Yeah,
I wonder whether it's like the danger, Rachel.
I mean, this is true, but I think
a lot of these. However, I think I
think that the discussion of the faculty members beforehand maybe
brought up the same issue of Okay, well,
if I'm going to go publish something in external,
I can I can I can say who I want
to peer review my article. I mean, I
don't I think it's the same. Obviously, that's
not anywhere near a blind review, right? I
think. I mean, people are very enamored with
your view as it is now, But really,
if you look at it, it's not really working
in my field and cancer. There's a paper last
year by these two guys at Amgen They took,
I think, like 60 or so of the landmark
cancer studies, and they set out to try and
reproduce them. These were papers that have incited a
lot of times and big name journals, and they
could only reproduce 11% of findings. So something that
looks great. But you know, it's just bending
things to jump through. The peer review hurdle,
I think can leave can actually be worse. You
know, if you have something that looks really good
, you made up this story because you know how
to get and play the game and get around the
reviewers ultimately, if when the rubber meets the road
and you make a drug test something against it,
if it's not right, you know you can't escape
. Nature is going to come out. Um,
and so problem that you have interviewers there can also
be by the time you're doing x part of my
background. Yes. We just transparent. Because I
know I've been in an article and yeah, I
got, like, two sentences. It's great,
you know, published. And I'm like, Well
, okay, but then I guess this really death
and one of the best that, you know,
this is a good physical now, but if you
try this, you might find some different results.
And that was the idea, Period. What did
I do? You know, correct. But is
there anything else I should look at that one and
the other three years? Very, very glad,
you know. So I'm a reviewer on your site
. People see the depth that I I'm really So
this is this is a great point. I think
reviewers should start to be valued because they're doing things
that are very important. And I think it's going
to be a reputation system built into the winter as
well. Ultimately, when I first had the idea
, I thought the people with the best reviews as
judged by the community would get free publications. So
there's incentives to to to review and things like this
and this. I can't put so many features in
the first version, but ultimately there are different things
and where reviews can become suitable. You know,
there's rapid responses in BMJ these titles and people submit
really great things that are pretty quick. Um,
and people are starting to make reviews site of assigning
them dont numbers and things like that. And I
think slowly and starting transitions where reviewers are becoming valued
rectally. So Yeah, well, I'm sorry.
That's a conversation short. I really appreciate you taking
the time. Different models for openness. Yeah. 866 00:47:45.179 --> A:middle L:90% Okay,