|
Logo
Draft for Public Comment

5. Commenting, annotating, and peer-review

1 As a user, I want to be able to comment or review the work of my colleagues and have those reviews (and reviewers) publicly available to all readers, so that the quality of these resources are assessed by others. Related to the previous user story, repositories can increase their value by supporting commenting, annotating and peer review activities as functional layers on top of their collective content. If repositories were able to support assessment and peer review, they could begin to reposition themselves at the centre of scholarly communication. To that end, repositories will need to support services that allow researchers to comment and annotate the papers deposited in the repositories, in an open, sharable and interoperable way, so that discussions and collaborative work can be promoted. The types of functionalities needed for this are described below: Leave a comment on line 1 0

2 As an author I want to: Leave a comment on line 2 1

  1. Invite any expert peer on the subject to review my manuscript, in order to improve its quality
  2. Have a fluid communication with the reviewer(s) during the review process (e.g., be able to exchange quick comments to clarify issues, chat, etc).
  3. Be able to update my work based on reviewer comments/suggestions and upload it as new version.
  4. Be able to publicly acknowledge reviewers for helping improve my work (e.g., through badges, ratings, etc).
  5. Have access to a list of active reviewers in my discipline.

3 As a reviewer I want to: Leave a comment on line 3 0

  1. Be able to review any document in the archive, either after invitation or following my own initiative
  2. Have a fluid communication with the author(s)
  3. Receive recognition for my review by the authors and the community (e.g., acknowledgment from authors, ratings from community, etc.)

4 As a reader I want to: Leave a comment on line 4 1

  1. Have access to the full text submitted by each reviewer for a given manuscript version
  2. Have access to the name of the reviewers and possible conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaboration with the author).
  3. Have access to easily interpretable quantitative data about each manuscript informing about its validity and perceived importance.
  4. Be able to filter and sort works in the archive (e.g., based on number of reviews, review scores, etc.).
  5. Be able to suggest reviewers for specific manuscripts/works.
  6. Have quick access to all reviews made by a specific reviewers along with quantitative information about this reviewer’s performance
Page 11

Source: http://comment.coar-repositories.org/7-5-commenting-annotating-peer-review/