-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
User stories
Building a library that supports DocMaps to visualize online the peer review process linked to a preprint.
Not all user stories are expected to be implemented.
Emphasis is on Readers.
- Author
- Reader
- Reviewer
- Editor
- Funder/Hiring committee
As an Author, I want to link to a specific refereed reprint so that I can - include it in my CV or application to receive credit for my research
As an Author, I want to link to several of my preprints so that I can document my scientific output over a given time window.
As an Author, I want to download my refereed preprint track record so that I can include it in an application
As a Reader, while browsing through a list of preprints, I want to easily see which peer review platform reviewed which preprint, so that I can focus on those reviews that I trust.
As a Reader, I want to easily see a general summary of the peer reviews while browsing so that I can focus on preprints that could be interesting for my own research.
As a Reader, I want to access the full review process so that I can form my own opinion about the reported findings.
As a Reader, I want easy access to the preprint content so that I can read it in full.
As a Reader, I want to be able to easily browse through a list of refereed preprints so that I can skim through content and pick those that are interesting for further reading.
As a Reader, I want to know if a refereed preprint has already been published in a journal so that I can read the final published paper.
As a Reader, I want to have to easily grasp to which extent the preprint has been evaluated, corrected, and endorsed. such that I can set my expectations on how to trust the scientific content of the preprint.
As a Reader, I want to make sure that the origin and the content of the reviews have not been modified so that I can fully trust them.
As a Reader, I want to list the refereed preprints for which the reviewers were overwhelmingly positive so that I can focus on the best science first.
As a Reader, I want to compare figures before and after review so that I can see how they have been modified in response to a review
As a Reader, I want to find examples of reviews that comment on a particular technique or assay so that I can find out what are the most common criticisms of these methods.
As an Editor, while browsing through a list of preprints, I want to easily see which peer review platform reviewed which preprint, so that I can focus on those that I trust.
As an Editor, while browsing I want to easily see a general summary of the peer reviews so that I can focus on preprints that could be interesting for my journal.
As an Editor, I want to access the full review process so that I can decide on whether to invite the authors to submit.
As an Editor, I want to easily email the corresponding author so that I can invite her/him to submit.
As an Editor, I want to see how old the reviews are so that I can evaluate whether the novelty of the study should be re-evaluated.
As an Editor, I want easy access to the preprint content so that I can read it.
As an Editor, I want to be able to easily browse through a list of refereed preprints so that I can skim through content and pick those that are interesting for further reading.
As an Editor, I want to know if a refereed preprints has already been published in a journal.
As an Editor, I want to make sure that the origin and the content of the reviews have not been modified so that I can fully trust them.
As a Reviewer, I want to easily link to the list of reviews I wrote so that I can claim credit for it and document my activity as a reviewer.
As a Reviewer, I want to download the list of reviews I wrote so that I can include it in an application.
Note: these user stories might better be supported by services like ORCID or Publons. There might be a case to integrate ORCID/Publons registered reviews, but this extends beyond direct visualization/interaction for this project.
As a funder, I want to access the content of reviews claimed in an applicant's CV so that I can check their existence and quality.
As a funder, I want to obtain a summary of the frequency of the peer review activity of an applicant so that I can take this into account in the evaluation.
As a funder, I want to know which platforms/journal have used an applicant as a reviewer with which frequency so that that I can take this into account in the evaluation.
Note: a key difficulty that is not captured in this is the issue of reviewer confidentiality.