CReDIT Action? Crossref list of reviewer roles/terms review. Or give to CASRI and ask them to look into it? Ontology required Machine readable? XML tagging up of tables etc(complicated documents) Show value of full text to publishers so they Group 2 Commonalities/themes Objects - for each version, there may be any number of the following: referee report, decision editor’s letter, author’s rebuttal, manuscript Technical requirements - Reviewer permissions - published reports may be signed depending on the publisher implementation. Permissions need to be established and made clear to reviewer and author in the journal policy. License for the review artifact (separate from the article) - CC-BY Elements of an ideal approach to publishing peer review reports/bundles All objects fully tagged to the archive in the same way as the article Fully automated system, seamless exchange from author submission & peer review management system to typesetters/publishing platform to indexers and metadata systems Third party peer review systems are also integrated into this process, whether pre- or post-publication ORCID integration? Downstream tie-ins - Needs a PID? Current pain points Existing MTS and publishing platforms - getting data out but also collecting data from submission system Getting the reviews displayed in a user friendly manner on the publishing platform Checks being done - hard to scale Red line/absolute requirements Link review artifact to the article Distinguish contributors of the review artifacts where available (i.e., signed) from the author names Easy retrieved Citable (?) Own DOI/PID? Can each component really have their own DOIs, but then you can build all into one PDF Some publishers cannot give DOIs to the smaller things - eg BMJ and hosting platform cannot do it
CReDIT Action? Crossref list of reviewer roles/terms review. Or give to CASRI and ask them to look into it? Ontology required Machine readable? XML tagging up of tables etc(complicated documents) Show value of full text to publishers so they Group 2 Commonalities/themes Objects - for each version, there may be any number of the following: referee report, editor’s decision letter, author’s rebuttal, manuscript Technical requirements - Reviewer permissions - published reports may be signed depending on the publisher implementation. Permissions need to be established and made clear to reviewer and author in the journal policy. License for the review artifact (separate from the article) - CC-BY Elements of an ideal approach to publishing peer review reports/bundles All objects fully tagged to the archive in the same way as the article Fully automated system, seamless exchange from author submission & peer review management system to typesetters/publishing platform to indexers and metadata systems Third party peer review systems are also integrated into this process, whether pre- or post-publication ORCID integration? Downstream tie-ins - Needs a PID? Current pain points Existing MTS and publishing platforms - getting data out but also collecting data from submission system Getting the reviews displayed in a user friendly manner on the publishing platform Checks being done - hard to scale Red line/absolute requirements Link review artifact to the article Distinguish contributors of the review artifacts where available (i.e., signed) from the author names Easy retrieved Citable (?) Own DOI/PID? Can each component really have their own DOIs, but then you can build all into one PDF Some publishers cannot give DOIs to the smaller things - eg BMJ and hosting platform cannot do it