Something that has been in the back of my mind for a while, an overlay journal platform. Started thinking about this more recently again and had some good discussion on Scholar.Social.
TL;DR Articles published (almost) anywhere, reviews conducted on Hypothes.is, status and meta-data stored on the platform
The basic idea is that there is a platform similar to Reddit. Perhaps built using the open source Postmill.
- Authors submit articles as link submissions on the platform.
- On submission, the author also provides a text abstract and links to any connected data or code.
- Links can be to just about anywhere that is web accessible. Could use a preprint server or even just their personal blog.
- The comment section facilitates the peer-review process, but does not actually host the reviews.
- Instead the reviews are conducted through Hypothes.is.
- This keeps the reviews accessible should the platform go down and also ties them directly to the article, wherever it lives.
- If something like Postmill is used, the sub-community feature could allow disciplinary focus such as a sub-community for
mathematicsor something that allows for independent management.
- The author edits their document after the reviews are complete and notifies when this is done.
It would be helpful to have a bot or two to deal with a few maintenance things. Similar to how JOSS has Whedon.
- An editor can be assigned and the editor can assign reviewers using the bot.
- When a new article is posted, the bot checks the URL. If the article host is not archival (ie. on Arxiv or a preprint server or a repository), then the bot submits it to Internet Archive to get a stable version and comments with this link.
- The bot creates a unique hashtag for use in Hypothes.is annotation and then embeds a Hypothes.is stream for that tag.
- Reviewers can provide their Hypothes.is username, then when they conduct their review, a separate Hypostes.is stream is created for the “official” reviews.
- After the article has been edited by the author. They notify the bot of the new version and this is archived as necessary.
- Reviewers can indicate their review status to the bot (ie. accept, revise, etc.).
- Once both reviewers accept, the bot can record the “final” version and grab a DOI.