User:Squitz/sandbox

Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,066 pending submissions waiting for review. If the submission is accepted, then this page will be moved into the article space. If the submission is declined, then the reason will be posted here. In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Reviewer tools Instructions · What links here · sandbox (talk: + · bio) · (log) · Copyvios report · reFill · Citation Bot · (Search: Google, Wikipedia) · Submitted 10 years ago by Squitz (talk: D · +) · Last edited 10 years ago by Squitz Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace.

Introduction

Publons is a social networking website for researchers to share and discuss peer review of academic publications. It was launched in 2012 and is now the world’s largest independent repository of peer review information, containing reviews from over 970 different journals.

Background

Publons was founded by Andrew Preston and Daniel Johnston to address the difficulties in publishing peer reviewed literature.^[1]. The Publons name is an homage to the "publon", the "minimum unit of publishable material". Highly rated reviews receive DOIs, similar to Figshare.

Reception

TechCrunch remarked that lack of transparency leads to many problems in the publication process, and Publons purports to help with that ^[2]. ResearchInformation noted that while the site supports both pre- and post-publication review, not all reviews are published in deference to existing publication norms ^[3]. Nature noted that peer review is an important job, and reports on the reactions of two of Publons's most prolific reviewers ^[4].

Other information

Relative to Academia.edu and ResearchGate, Publons focuses entirely on peer review.

1. Preston, Andrew R.H.; Johnston, Daniel. "Publon #1: The Future of Academic Research". Figshare. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
2. Shu, Catherine. "Academic Startup Publons Gives Peer Reviewers Credit For Their Work". Techcrunch. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
3. Harris, Sian. "Tracking and Validating Reviews". Reasearch Informaiton. Europa Science Limited. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
4. van Noorden, Richard. "The scientists who get credit for peer review". Nature. Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved 9 October 2014.