this is for holding javascript data
Josh Nicholson edited Arguably_the_publishing_process_is__.html
almost 8 years ago
Commit id: 5c8b45a6e29c5ecfc8eb66d2bfd4a15b930896ad
deletions | additions
diff --git a/Arguably_the_publishing_process_is__.html b/Arguably_the_publishing_process_is__.html
index e7fbe3e..68a05f2 100644
--- a/Arguably_the_publishing_process_is__.html
+++ b/Arguably_the_publishing_process_is__.html
...
author = {Stephen Ceci and Douglas Peters},
title = {The Peters {\&} Ceci Study of Journal Publications},
journal = {The Winnower}
}" data-bib-key="Ceci_2014" contenteditable="false">
Ceci 2014)
That is not to say that peer review is not without benefits, just that it it is not stopping major errors from being published. An alternative is to post/publish/preprint work without review--hint: Authorea--and then coordinate review post-publication through traditional routes or through open post-publication peer review platforms--such as
F1000Research F1000Research and
The Winnower. Such a process affords seamless communication amongst scientists without unnecessary delay, eliminates editorial bias, and makes the entire process transparent. In short, it makes the most sense.
Disagree? Leave an annotation anywhere on this document or write up a counterpoint. We believe in open communication, making it more fluid and collaborative and we hope you'll join us.
Write your next paper today on Authorea. Send it wherever you'd like. #OpenScience