🇳🇱
The open peer-review process they do at F1000 is exactly what all journals should be doing. I love that they publish the peer review, in detail, right next to the article themselves.
@aluaces Trust, by being able to see the peer review process, objections, and their resolution, we can judge the validity of the paper as a reader.
@freemo I usually thought like that, but in the end I came to the conclusion that a paper stands by itself. You don't have to be an expert to judge it, after all, papers are not light reads and require a big effort to the reader to fully understand it, therefore uncovering the possible mistakes it could have.
It does however require an expert to improve and advise the authors about their work, but this process is already shown in the published version of the paper.
Publishing the whole process would unconver bad reviewers, for example, "just everything is good", "just everything is bad", "cite my papers". But the interest is merely anecdotical.
I'm in no way against that idea, I wouldn't object about publishing my reviews, I'm just stating that it seems to me of curious or anecdotical value.
This is Mur 
@freemo
This is very good, cause I see that most researchers read these papers like a fact book (just to cite them as a fact in their paper) having peer review alongside can reveal the doubted sides of the paper as well 
@mur2501 indeed. Though im more concerned with the readers than the researchers
@freemo
Aren't most readers researchers?
@mur2501 If by researcher you mean someone doing research and considering it as source material (something to cite), then no. Most readers are reading it to learn what the publication has to teach. They may also do research (as scientists as a whole are more likely to read it), but pretty much anyone witht he expertise to understand it is likely going to read journal publications.
@freemo cool site. like what i see there. what i cannot help but consider are of course “the plants” we evolved along side, for the past few thousand years. I don’t particularly dig the bloke that wrote this piece, but there are good points brought up, if one reads the thing instead of just “scanning”. http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/CDCs_Nightmare_Bacteria_Reveals_Need_for_Natural_M.pdf // I’m personally much more inclined to go with plants but that’s not why I’m sharing this. It’s related to the study you referenced, affording perspective.
The open peer-review process they do at F1000 is exactly what all journals should be doing.
Wait, they aren't?
@freemo not sure what's the added value.