Since Peerage of Science was launched a month ago, founders and developers have been engaged in numerous interesting and constructive email discussions with colleagues. Some messages have been short notes of support and encouragement for the initiative (very much appreciated, thank you so much!), some are questions about how it all works and what the service policies are, and some are thoughtful commentaries with critique and suggestions how to improve the idea.
These discussions have been wonderful, but they really should be available and open to engage for all Peers, instead of hiding in inboxes. To be able to comply with its own rules of operating in the best interest of Peers, Peerage of Science needs to hear and engage discussions in the scientific community, about peer review in general, and about its own procedures and policies in particular.
The Peerage of Science Blog is launched to be a platform for you to voice support, opinions, critique, suggestions and questions in the open, to initiate discussions that will shape the development of the service. Do you think anonymity in Peerage of Science should enforced instead of being optional? Or do you think anonymity should be abolished altogether? Go ahead and tell the community, and the developers, that you'd like peer review to work that way.
While posting articles and commenting them requires a validated user account in Peerage of Science, anybody online can read this blog. It is therefore also a public window for the Peerage of Science community, to tell the world what we think and what we want. Would you like a world where your expertise in reviewing is rewarded in tangible terms? Or a world where you can get your result accepted for publication in an appropriate journal without having to spend a year or more in a submission-rejection-resubmission roulette? Go ahead and tell the world you'd like it that way.
One of the founders of the service, and a postdoctoral researcher at University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
One of my favourite coffee-break rants used to be about peer review and getting my science published (a fairly common trait among scientists I presume). I have since found out that trying to do something about it is more rewarding, that there are still plenty of other things to enjoy ranting about, and that even more coffee gets consumed