Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 9687232" data-attributes="member: 1405">Public posting, public comment has been tried and the results are not good. Authors rarely feel the need to revise in response. The articles tend to be full of spin. The idea seemed decent, at first, but never worked out in practice. Some major OA publishers tried to say that folks needed to read the comments to get context on what may be wrong with the paper; however, many of those platforms did not account for the need to archive the comments along with the PDF so the context and "review" got lost.Public comment also does not mean that experts with knowledge in that subject area are going to comment. The vast majority of researchers just read the abstract without looking deeper. They certainly do not have time to read the whole article, the comments, or comment on it themselves.I ran a pilot on this concept for 3 years. The pilot had every article using public posting and commenting. The editors also used traditional peer review. They compared the results and traditional peer review was better and more comprehensive every time.It's a nice concept and may it work in some fields, but I work on the medical side and it fails as a concept. A doctor who sees patients, teaches and conducts research does not have the time to spend here and the sheer volume of articles will mean that most never seen any comment or review.</blockquote>