@elduvelle @albertcardona
To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.
I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.
... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about sepa
... Show more...@elduvelle @albertcardona
To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.
I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.
... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating "preprints", "refereed publications" and "titles I'm thinking about writing" (in preparation) on one's CV.
It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a "journal" on CVs and for grants and promotion.
BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one's CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one's CV. Wanna bet these authors don't? 🤔
* Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on "interesting", not based on "correct". (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly _claiming_ to only publish papers that are "correct".)
#ScientificPublishing
