

Show HN: Open Review – Scientific peer review is broken. We want to fix it - peterjmag
https://news.researchgate.net/index.php?/archives/187-Peer-review-isnt-working-Introducing-Open-Review.html

======
peterjmag
For those of you who want to jump right in and see some actual results:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259984904_Stimulus-...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259984904_Stimulus-
triggered_fate_conversion_of_somatic_cells_into_pluripotency/reviews/103)

And a bit more information about the feature itself:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.OpenReviewInfo...](https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.OpenReviewInfo.html)

I'm a front-end engineer / designer at ResearchGate, and we've been working
our butts off to get this out. I really think this could turn the scientific
community and the peer review system on its head.

Of course, I'd love to hear your feedback!

------
teyc
Actually, I'd like to see what happens when you apply Google's antispam
measures to research papers. There are some researchers who constantly
reference one another, like a link farm, in order to boost their credentials.

~~~
shiven
If only it were that simple. PageRank is no panacea and not all cross-
citations are incestuous, as you seem to be implying.

~~~
teyc
No they do not imply wrong doing. There are a lot of good reasons why cross
citation occurs. Having an alternate score gives you another sense of what
kind of work this person is doing. You have to remember - using cross citation
to inflate rankings have a social cost as well. It prevents other more
promising research from gaining the right attention.

