Then was asked, not for the first time, why I don't share reviews of my work anyways. I respond that I am scared. Worried about publishers suing for weird IP, editors & reviewers not wanting to review my/team's future work, & unexpected.
So, was then asked - really? does that ever happen? Have publishers ever sued those who shared peer review of their work?
Have editors ever refused accepting new submissions from those who shared? reviewers not agreeing to review because of sharing history?
@giladfeldman I think we should, indeed. I find that reading reviews (in those journals that share them) often gives you a different view on the article.
@giladfeldman Do you know #pubpeer ? https://pubpeer.com/
It's not quite what you are talking about but I think it goes in the right direction. There is also a handy Chrome plugin to link to comments on PubPeer on pages that cite papers.
Yes, ofcourse. I would very much like to post all reviews on my work there and on the actual OSF of each project.
I was asking what the consequences of that would be and about case studies of things that happened when people did that.
@nicolaromano
Thanks.
If there is some agreement this is needed then maybe someone senior and tenured could give this a go and then the rest of us can see what the implications are and whether we'd like to follow.
There was a time when doing replications or red team/assessments was like that (still is in some fields). Need to start from somewhere.