Interesting look at changing how peer-review contributions are measured, through the lens of “gamification”
Fact is: there are lots of articles on arXiv and only about a third published traditionally (according to their statistics). Contrary to biology and medical science, where researchers are way more advanced in new publishing models (like PLoS and PeerJ, the second being almost green in flavour), in math and physics we don’t have any other option than arXiv, which is great, the greatest in fact, the oldest, but … but only if it had a functional peer-review system attached. Then it would be perfect!
It is hard though to come with a model of peer-review for the arXiv. Or for any other green OA publication system, I take the arXiv as example only because I am most fond of. It is hard because there has to be a way to motivate the researchers to do the peer-reviews. For free. This is the main type of psychological argument against having…
View original post 503 more words