Timeline for Community Peer-Review in Mathoverflow
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2019 at 14:20 | comment | added | Thanasis Stylianou | @GeraldEdgar PO has 165 review requests to date, around one review request per month and almost every second request has a review. | |
| Aug 13, 2019 at 13:53 | comment | added | Thanasis Stylianou | I plan to start an area 51 site. Any support is welcome! Area 51 community peer review | |
| Jul 19, 2019 at 13:38 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | This question is from January 2017. It would be interesting to hear comments on how well Reviews on PhysicsOverflow have worked in the last 2.5 years. | |
| Jul 17, 2019 at 10:35 | answer | added | Thanasis Stylianou | timeline score: -3 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 17:50 | vote | accept | Konstantinos Kanakoglou | ||
| Jan 11, 2017 at 22:22 | comment | added | Dilaton | The only thing a bit tricky I could imagine is to achieve that the author(s) of the paper earn(s) the rep from the votes on the review question, in case the person who suggests the paper to be reviewed is not an author of it. On PhysicsOverflow, we have a dedicated meta thread where people can claim authorship and subsequently have the review questions that contain their papers assigned to their account. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 at 22:18 | comment | added | Dilaton | @FedericoPoloni the basic idea behind the Reviews secion of PhysicsOverflow is rather simple: the question suggests a paper to be reviewed, the answers contain (partial) reviews, and further discussion can take place in comments to both. There are two different criteria the paper can be rated on separately (accuracy and originality), but maybe MO would be just fine keeping the normal voting system for the review questions. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 22:07 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | You should probably describe in the body of your question what the Review section of Physics Overflow does. A link is not enough for us to understand. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 21:29 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | May I point out pubpeer.com ? They currently get most activity around biology papers, and mostly people pointing out 'mistakes', innocent or otherwise, but everything on the arXiv, and everything with a DOI is indexed and can be commented on. This would cover almost all mathematics papers. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 18:48 | answer | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 16:12 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Dilaton: It's true, I don't know what or how the feature works over at the other website. However, the answers and arguments here are in favor of piloting a feature that would act as a de facto refereeing process for a paper. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | Dilaton | @AsafKaragila and others it should probably be clarified that for the Reviews section of PhysicsOverflow the papers themself do not actually get posted to the site. Each question that suggests a paper to be reviewed (called submission) contains a link to its online source (mostly ArXiv) together with the abstract and potentially additional comments. Should MathOverflow decide to adopt a similar procedure that just links to the papers to get discussed, there should be no legal issues or obstructions coming up ... | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:47 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | (And please don't give me that "you won't have to publish in a conventional journal!" answer. When search committee/tenure committees/or otherwise committees agree that MO reputation is equivalent to actual reputation, and I can get a permanent position over my participation here, then we can talk. Until then, this is just something nice to write in CV in addition to having my papers published properly.) | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:45 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | What would be the legal status of a paper you post here? Things on the SE network has a free license. How do you think a journal would react when these license terms overrule charging money for publication? | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 | history | edited | Konstantinos Kanakoglou | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 1:29 | comment | added | Konstantinos Kanakoglou | Now seriously: arXiv isn't really much of a community, at least not in the terms of the communities of the stackexchange network. In this sense, it more resembles (imo) traditional journals. I was thinking of motivating ideas for sensibly integrating such a feature in Mathoverflow community. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 1:26 | comment | added | Konstantinos Kanakoglou | Quite orthogonal? In which metric? or ...geometry ;) | |
| Jan 5, 2017 at 23:43 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | Isn't peer-review quite orthogonal to the purpose of MathOverflow? -- I'd rather think such feature may be a worthwhile addition to the arXiv, but I can't really imagine how to sensibly integrate this into MathOverflow. | |
| Jan 5, 2017 at 22:13 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 5, 2017 at 16:52 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 27 | |
| Jan 5, 2017 at 3:14 | history | edited | Konstantinos Kanakoglou | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 4, 2017 at 23:41 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 4, 2017 at 19:51 | history | asked | Konstantinos Kanakoglou | CC BY-SA 3.0 |