this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

31246 readers
981 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you have any experience in this field, please include so in your reply. I've seen over time a lot of criticism over the peer review process and how journals hyper-exploit academics simply because the journals are able to monetize scarcity/exclusivity. I saw another post on it today and I thought, "what if this was federated?"

I was looking around and I see that there are writing portions of the process, such as pubpub or manubot that essentially use git and markdown - but that's not the main point as that's on the before end. What about on the review process?

Let's say there's software that's federated and can be run by anyone from individuals to universities and consortiums. When a user or team is ready to publish, they can "submit their work" for publishing, which would federate out as works pending publication.

This part's a different issue: how to handle reputation for who can review, but I think there are ways to do that and that's beyond the scope of this post as I imagine it could get pretty complicated and would require feedback from people actually in the industry.

The reviewers can submit comments and reviews back to the author via federation, but this time the process can be open instead of behind closed doors. The authors revise, comment, etc. At some point a determination is made that this work is "published."

This seems like a feasible premise. Just brainstorming, you would get history, open reviews, no one asking $1,000 to submit a publication that they then make bank on while you get scraps or nothing.

I could see a reputation system within a given field and/or overall, with certain users being "review board" or "reviewers" on their instance. There could also be additional reputation if, say, a group of universities creates consortiums for different fields and then that consortium "publishes" a work. There'd have to be additional process to block people from spamming works that aren't ready or whatever, but that's not really the point for now.

Am I barking up the wrong tree here? At first thought, it seems like there are ways to allow federation of research papers and peer review and to put a dent in the grip of technical journals.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

To me, that sounds like it'll create more issues than it'll solve. Part of why it's difficult to get rid of large journals is because people like the centralization. Even beyond the obvious pride aspect of getting into an exclusive journal, a big reason for having journals is that it is much easier to find relevant papers if they're collected and catalogued into a small number of large repositories (ie, journals).

Federation intrinsically has lower discoverability, and it is difficult enough to find relevant papers that you want. And due to decentralization, it is more difficult to separate out the troll articles from the serious ones. That doesn't matter if federation is used for a social media platform or if it is used for peer-to-peer communication, but it seems to run counter to the purpose of publishing scientific articles.

And that's not counting the issues that you would have with the review process on a federated service

[โ€“] RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago

yeah, you bring up a lot of good points there.

I was thinking there'd have to be different levels of the process, such as "submitted, reviewed, published" as well as "in the general repository" and "by this organization". The discoverability would still be hard due to the nature of federation.