About PAGE

If you think research and knowledge are as vital to humanity as air, water, bread and freedom, then you probably know what Peer Evaluation is about.

Peer Evaluation is about giving Open Access to your primary data, working papers, articles, media and having them all reviewed and discussed by your peers. Peer evaluation is a strong supporter of qualified peer reviewing and is, in that respect, a valuable supplement, inspiration and hub for peer reviewed journals and publications. Finally, Peer Evaluation is an independent and community interest project.

jump to

1- Scientific Reputation and Trust
Scientific reputation is essential to researchers for their academic advancement, tenure, research grants and fellowships. It relies, most of the times, on quantitative metrics such as the H Index, citation counts, article counts and other quantitative metrics.

Peer Evaluation complements the quantitative metric system with a whole new set of qualitative indicators that are comprehensive, transparent and immediately verifiable by researchers and funding institutions.

2- Supporting Peer to Peer Reputation
Let us think of Socrates and his disciples, Alexandria's ancient library and its librarians, scholars exchanging texts and thoughts, scholars inviting scholars from other cities, interactions, discussions, relations, reputation being transferred from master to disciple and from peer to peer. Production of knowledge, scientific validation, reputation and dissemination relied solely on human interactions, efforts and processes.

The social Web helps us restore these ancient and efficient dynamics by bringing together a community of peers who can interact, discuss and propagate their research.

Then, Peer Evaluation's role is indeed to bring peers together, to allow these interactions and to translate them into qualitative indicators of reputation and trust.

3 - Why is Peer Reviewing Not Anonymized on Peer Evaluation
Below, Christopher Batty explores the benefits of Open Peer Review, for both the reviewers and reviewees. Christopher is a researcher in computer graphics and computational physics.This is his unedited Quora post, reproduced in-extenso with his kind permission:

"Here are some thoughts to get the discussion started.

Benefits for reviewers

• Submitters would have an incentive to only submit work they believe is truly ready, since potentially negative early reviews would be public. Hopefully reviewers might then receive fewer papers of generally higher quality to review.

• Quality reviews and suggestions leading to substantial improvements to the paper would be directly credited to the appropriate reviewer, helping to strengthen his/her reputation. Blind, closed reviewing means even tremendous efforts in this area can remain largely unheralded.

• Reviewers can more quickly learn from other reviews. What makes a good review? How can my reviews be improved? etc.

• No need to expend effort "anonymizing" your comments.

• For re-submitted papers, there is more incentive to address legitimate criticisms rather than simply re-submitting without changes, since the whole community would be aware if the authors haven't bothered to attempt to improve their work.

Benefits for reviewees

• Reviewers have to stand behind their reviews, and therefore more thorough, higher quality, constructive, and perhaps more tactful reviews are likely.

• Under-handed behaviour and politically motivated reviews would be more likely to be identified as such.

• Depending on the reviewer, it might be possible to follow-up on any major confusion or suggestions outside the formal reviewing mechanism, in order to achieve clarity (though clearly this has the potential for abuse).

• The availability of public reviews might offer a good starting point for an engaging public/online discussion of your research, far beyond publication.

• You can see directly what questions are most often raised by reviewers in your field, allowing you to prepare for them and improve your paper in advance of submission."

4- Drive your Research and Your Reputation
The Web lets us, and almost for free, work together, disseminate our research and reach out to peers around the world. Nothing is easier than searching the Web, finding a researcher's email address and sending him or her a link to your work. Whether you are in Brisbane, Manilla, New York, Leyden, Dakar or Doha, you can reach out to the best people and request that they review your work in Peer Evaluation's qualitative environment, in which other peers might have already endorsed it.

It has been acknowledged that the Web is a highly conducive environment, and that good content combined with proper dissemination efforts will make your research go around the world and back.In Peer Evaluation we provide you with efficient processes and advice to take control over the reputation and dissemination of your work.

5- Restoring Privacy and Mutual Respect
Peer Evaluation has taken a strong stance regarding privacy. It's actually more than privacy. It's about respecting your intelligence and dignity. I personally cringe at free websites where free translates to many opacities, to visible or in-your-face intrusions for the better data-mining and monetization of private information. Peer Evaluation has chosen not to store any cookies on anyone's computer, does not suggest to import and store your email contacts, does not exploit email addresses you provide when you disseminate your work to your peers.

6- How Does Peer Evaluation Make Money
Peer Evaluation is developed and supported by Collective Developments as an Open Access and community interest project. Its access is entirely free for both its subscribers and its unsubscribed readers. Thanks to the hard work and the contributions of many, the costs for building Peer Evaluation were reasonable, and its current operating costs are within our reach. As the project grows, it will need more server space, maintenance and user support, and these costs will be covered by other Collective Developments projects that generate sufficient income to finance Peer Evaluation over the years. We're also working on optional micro-services that would cost a dollar or so. If you would like to help us in providing such services please write to us, we would be glad to receive your comments and suggestions.

7- Yes to Multilingual Research
Although Peer Evaluation's interface is English speaking, this Website accepts and encourages that you upload your work in any language. This applies not only to the content you upload or link to, but also to the titles, tags and abstracts you provide in our description forms. For greater visibility and dissemination we also recommend that, in general, you enter tags and abstracts in more than one language.

8- What is a Community Interest Project
A community interest project dedicates a substantial percentage of its revenues to its community and to the public good. When Peer Evaluation generates profit through its optional micro-services or through ideas that may arise from its community (see point 6, above), 50 to 70% of these profits will be used to the community's benefit. Excluded from community interest initiatives are improvements to the Website or additions of new features. How this money will be spent is a question to be shared among Peer Evaluation's community. One of the first ideas that come to mind concerns translation, i.e financing the translation or subtitling of outstanding contributions. Translation, a corner stone of dissemination, is quite expensive, and many important works go completely unheard of simply because of that. This applies equally to material in English, Chinese, Turkish, Hebrew, Dutch, Arabic... Finally, claiming to be a community interest project implies audits and the publication of annual reports. We have chosen to go beyond what is required in similar contexts and to promote full financial transparency and accountability.

9- More Acknowledgements
Marc de Filippo. Don't google him, you won't find anything besides this paragraph and, if you really get lucky, you'll come accross his bogus Peer Evaluation page, but it's probably gone by now. Marc has been an outstanding and faithful Peer Evaluation contributor.
Gloria Origgi. To cut a long story short, Gloria was the first to upload a real article on Peer Evaluation. Her constant support and enthusiasm were very much our daily bread. Most of Gloria's current research and publications revolve around the concepts of trust and especially reputation. Egyptians say that "your fate lies in your name". Gloria, glory, reputation. Egyptians might well be right.

I hope you'll join us, enjoy the experience and share it with others.

All best,

Aalam, founder

with emails
cookie only
of user

We wish to express our very special thanks to those who make, advise, improve and support Peer Evaluation.

Marc de Filippo
Gloria Origgi
Roberto Casati
Aliaksandr Birukou
Clément Levallois
Stevan Harnad
C. Lee Giles
Peter Suber
Guillaume Dupuy d'Angeac
Tamer el Halawani
Lionel Lambert
Marie Watteau
Jean-Christophe Israel
Stéphane de Saint-Hilaire
Aya Wassef
Jason Priem
Heather Piwowar
Britt Holbrook
Taimur el Halawani
Thomas Krichel
Adrian J. Ebsary
Benjamin Pitcho
Emmanuel Brochier
Cédric Lor
Alix Dunn
François Accart
Nariman Youssef
Habiba Wassef
Claude Sureau
Ayyam Sureau
François Sureau
Nermine Hammam
Mathias Gavarry
Julie Sedel
Eve de Dampierre
Agnès Montenay
Jean Bernard
Rana Shoukry
Simon Henein
Mira Shihadeh
Simona Morini