Proofofpeer review

Hello everyone!

I am new here, and I do not know if it is right section. I was recommended on mastodon to try POPR | About

And as far as I understand its one of VitaDAO initiative (it uses vita tokens?)

Putting review of paper in one box like comment under tweet or post on forum is too simplified in my opinion. When you compare this to commertial editorial menager review form it does not look like competition or good alternative.

Are there stewards responsible for its creation or someone are willing to share their thoughts about it?


Great to have you @Dareczin, @timrpeterson is leading this initiative :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hi @Dareczin thanks for trying out POP review/TLDR. Yes VITA tokens will be given to those who review.

We are tentatively going to integrate TLDR (peer review service) and The Longevist (longevity KOL curated collection of top manuscripts) with the manuscripts that are featured every month on the Newsletter, such that those manuscripts get reviewed and have the potential to be selected as the top manuscripts.

Regarding the format, our goal is to facilitate more rapid feedback than what journals offer. We want to reduce the barriers to contribute. Also, the journals lack up/down voting, which imo is needed to give people the TLDR on whether the manuscript is worthy.

Commenting and voting is a much more familiar UX on the internet than what journals do. All that being said, we’d be happy to hear your suggestions.

1 Like

I agree that commenting and voting is good. I imagined it that uder article there could be review in more formal form and then comment section to specific review. I do not think it will slow down process. For example template consist of questions like “does introduction section provides good bacgrubd related to topic”? Reviewer will anwser to those questions. Then in comment box someone can adress to reviews in a manner"i disagree with you view about sample size, as the same was used in study A B and X". Then discussion can go on, but initial feedcack for authors could be structured instead of leaving the form up to reviewer.

1 Like