Martyn RittmanI haven't really been on here during the #RecognizingPreprintReview workshop, but it's been excellent and thought-provoking. There's a lot of potential for #preprint review, even if it's still at an early stage.
Tim Rittman@smart314 how do you engage people to review preprints though? I agree it's a good idea, but haven't seen it work in practice (yet).
@tim I was going to ask you the same question - what would persuade you and what credit would you want? You need to build communities where it becomes the norm. Preprint review parties seem like a good place to start.
@smart314 it's a tricky one. No one gets credit for reviews even now, it's more of a culture change that's needed. The advantage of reviewing is getting to see papers early and seeing what mistakes other people make! These can be emphasised. If it replaces the current peer review system then people might buy into it.
@tim What if your preprint reviews were open and/or you could get credit? It does seem like an anonymous or pseudonymous system is needed to avoid potential recrimination, which is a genuine concern for anyone who's not a tenured, white, middle-aged professor.
@smart314 there is a trade-off between getting recognition from begin known, and the threat of repercussions so needing to be anonymous. I suppose the best option is to give people the choice to be named/anonymous, open/blind review.