¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 As we note on the welcome page for this white paper, we are seeking the broadest possible feedback in this open review, both on the white paper’s details as well as on the larger questions that it raises. We are of course interested in local comments that focus on issues raised by individual paragraphs, but we would also like comments that take a broader view of the document as a whole. These comments can be left on the General Comments page.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 We welcome comments both from the skeptical and from the won-over, and we particularly hope for comments that keep in mind the many functions of peer review (not only publication but also hiring, promotion, funding, and reputation). We are interested in feedback from readers who have been part of open peer review processes, whether as authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, or in any other role. We also hope for responses from scholars with a range of levels of experience, from just beginning a career to those well-established. It would be particularly helpful to us for commenters to register for accounts and post contextual information in their bios.
- ¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1
- Clarity of purpose (Are our intentions for the document clear? Does it fulfill those promises?)
- Organizational concerns (Have we structured the document in a coherent and logical manner? Do sections flow and does the information within them seem to be in the right place?)
- Nuance of argument/perspective (Are we missing key connections between open review and the humanities tradition, key human dynamics, or existing tools that might strengthen our recommendations?)
- Examples (Are there additional experiments in or explorations of open review that we should include in our consideration?)
- Applicability (Are there ways in which the ideas we’ve discussed here might affect your own work that we should consider?)