The Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) model has been advocated by funders and researchers as a way of improving the quality and availability of published research. Stern BM, O’Shea EK (2019) recommend several changes over three areas:
To drive scientific publishing forward, we propose several long-term changes. Although these changes could be implemented independently, together they promise to significantly increase transparency and efficiency.
- Change peer review to better recognize its scholarly contribution.
- Shift the publishing decision from editors to authors.
- Shift curation from before to after publication.
This community-driven technology effort is to produce an application that can support the changes in behaviour required to effect this change. The approach to building the software is to keep the cost of change low so that the application can quickly adapt to feedback and barriers to adoption, helping the researcher drive the technology to meet their needs.
While the majority of people working on this application are funded by eLife and their generous funders, we are operating at a distance from the eLife journal so that other editorial communities, innovative journals and interested technologists can join on a more equal basis. eLife’s editorial community will be one of the first to use the application and this separation helps us support them in their endeavours to change behaviour in the same way we will with any other community.
Read more about:
- Our approach
- Our current direction and hypothesis
- Scenarios we’ve enabled
- Future direction and considerations
- How to give us feedback
Using techniques popularised by extreme programming to concentrate on meeting your needs and to get feedback early, we are developing this application with a “working software first” approach. This means that you’ll see more of the application earlier, and some parts will be clearly labelled as a future feature that we’re asking for early feedback on. This means we can add new editorial communities quickly and respond to your feedback with changes to the application while you’re using it.
We define an hypothesis to test and write software to help test that hypothesis with real users. In doing so we define the scope of the next iteration and clearly define parts that are to be deferred. This ensures everyone knows what is being implemented but can see areas left for future exploration.
We’re currently focussing on improving the user experience for postdocs who regularly engage with preprints. We are exploring ways in which we might help readers discover and consume new content that is relevant to them outside of the realm of traditional journal publication.
Talking to researchers about how they currently discover and consume content has led us to implement a number of features that emphasise the social networking aspect of scholarly communication, since the interests and recommendations of peers are highly influential. Application users can build a customisable feed of activity by following communities of editors and reviewers, and we plan to expand this functionality to include other kinds of events and entities in the future. Crucially, these activities should be as relevant to the user as possible, to help filter out what matters to them from the wealth of available content.
We assume that additional value indicators such as evaluations from different communities will help readers choose in which articles to invest their limited time, and we are working with a small number of editorial communities who have already provided us with reviews and other content. We want to find out if trust in the judgement of these communities is fostered not only by the transparent disclosure of that community’s review output, but also its editorial policies and review process in order to contextualise that output for researchers.
These are the most recent scenarios represented on the application now:
- The editorial community’s landing page outlines that community’s editorial policies and review process, shows a feed of their most recent activity.
- Each community's landing page contains a list of current followers.
- Evaluations from editorial communities are automatically imported from each community's own platform(s) of choice.
- Users can search for bioRxiv content using the search box on the home page.
- Article pages collect evaluation information such as reviews and endorsements.
- A user can log in using Twitter credentials and customize the homepage feed by selecting editorial communities to follow.
To aid in the rapid development of the application we have deliberately left some key features for later:
- Content: only evaluations of bioRxiv content are currently supported.
We gather feedback from users as we build which helps inform our future direction. Our team Miro board is publicly available and shows our current work in progress as well as the longer term roadmap.
It visualises the areas we may explore next as opportunities, hypotheses and experiments. (Learn more about the Opportunity Solution Tree framework).
The application is changing on a daily basis. To stay up to date, as well as letting us know what you think so far, head on over to our feedback page.
Beck K (2000) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2000. ISBN 0201616416.
Teresa Torres (2016) Why This Opportunity Solution Tree is Changing the Way Product Teams Work. https://www.producttalk.org/2016/08/opportunity-solution-tree/