In the case of scientific articles, a "post-publication" peer review may occur and is identified. The stories of F1000Research experiences are varied, ranging from those who worship it, to those who will never submit again. Librarian Jeffrey Beall has cited F1000Research in his Scholarly Open Access blog for accepting a paper possibly in the frontier between science and fraud ("fringe paper"). Such an occurrence should not, in fact, denigrate that publishing platform, since its policy is to publish first and then revise. Checking the publication, we can see that it received 1 approval and 2 rejections, leading to conclude that Beall's assessment may be correct: it can be a "fringe paper." Due to the nature of the F1000Research editorial process, however, this does not mean that this platform has lower quality. Articles of questionable quality assessed a posteriori have also been published in many traditional journals and the refutation of their claims is part of the development of science as a whole.
I especially like the proposal to publish all the posters presented at congresses in a repository. At the moment, this F1000Research service is free and without limits. Posters may be published in any language, but metadata should be described in English. After submission, an evaluation is performed for editorial homogeneity, markers are assigned and the poster is published (publicly available, with DOI and can be cited). This type of proposal has the advantage of promoting the dissemination of data that is still preliminary, but which may be useful. In addition, it can help reduce publication bias by encouraging the publication of negative data that, after presentation at events, is rarely published in conventional journals. Posters published on F1000Research are not indexed on popular platforms such as Google Scholar.
The submission process was very simple and fast. There is the option to add a poster summary, plus the title and keywords. It also tells you where and when the work was presented. The time between the submission and its approval varied, in my case, from 6 to 60 hours, or close to that. None of my submissions were rejected, but some English summaries (metadata) were truncated, usually leaving the introduction and conclusion and deleting the rest. Perhaps it was due to problems in the English language, but I believe that the staff of F1000Research has no homogeneity of judgment at this point, because all the abstracts were written in the same style and even with some similar texts, due to the proximity between the themes addressed. Even so, while some were published without any change, others were truncated in most of the text. Another thing I noticed was a variation on the assignment of markers, prerogative of the staff of F1000Research (in PeerJ, for example, the author chooses them). The choice of markers seemed, at times, random. In some of my posters, the neuro-oncology marker was correctly assigned. In five of them, an excessive number for those who propose a process with few errors, the marker chosen was "tumors of head and neck." This forced me to contact support twice, and in the second time there was a delay in response. Although it was a setback, it did not greatly diminish my impression on the quality of F1000Research.
All counted, I rate my experience with posting posters (and slides) in F1000Research on the positive side. This proposal is interesting and there are several alternative services coming up, like Figshare. I want to evaluate other repositories for posters, slides and other academic materials otherwise not published in conventional venues.
My submissions published in F1000Research.
Link for the last poster I published in this platform: Descriptive longitudinal study of pediatric patients with primary brain tumors: establishment... - F1000Research
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário