mrchristian001

Here is a proposal for a feasibility study of a open an open and syndicated 'Citizen Science Open Peer Review system for science in news media' - do you think its an idea worth trying out or have you see things like it?

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/

The trial would involve researchers and the scientifically interested public being on an email list and receiving news articles to be reviewed. The trial would be to look at the speed and accuracy of reviews compared to slower reviews of news media by https://sciencefeedback.co/

Users could be ranked by different metrics to gauge trustworthiness, etc.

Things along these lines exist and could be tied in PubPeer, prereview, plaudit and a range of science literature 'Open Peer Review' systems listed by ASAPbio https://asapbio.org/?s=open+peer+review

Hi,

Simon from #GenR here. My question was about addressing the end part of the publishing workflow you describe, where the news media are abusing preprints and using them as a more solid basis of scientific knowledge that should be the case.

What measures can be taken to improve the use of science in news media?

Is an idea of extending a version open peer review to news media and the use of science literature and data by journalists a idea worth pursuing?

Are there platforms, like fact checking platforms, for reviewing science in the media?

And on top of that are there syndicated open systems that could also stretch across social media to rank and review the reviewers?

Maybe #AMAs can become part of the rapid review process?