@danwchan Hey! Thanks for the welcome. We've had a few folks help out with reviews but haven't opened it up to the larger experiment community yet. Part of it is Cindy's fear of managing other reviewers, but I've been itching to get other people using it. :)
We made a pretty cool review system, and the next step is to get others helping out.
@denny Hmm I wonder what editors have to say about managing reviewers in peer review. It seems like they don't manage very much except to line them up and send them to work. Which might be part of the reason some people feel like reviewers are unfair. But at the end of the day the editor gets to make a decision. I'm curious as to how you guys are envisioning the review of your projects. Do reviews support the crowd or do they support your decisions gate-keeping the projects?
@danwchan the idea is to have a 'board' of reviewers, but actually, the review process is more like 20% gatekeeping, and 80% helping scientists to prepare and do well. a lot of work goes into helping project creators get up to speed.
@denny By prepare to do well I assume you mean meet their fundraising goals. You have published guides to that end online, which makes me wonder what sort of community you want to build with reviewers. Are they support for series of best practices or are they also some sort of individual voice which can critique the proposal (maybe in ways science has previously not experienced at this scale). In either case if you want to extend a few jobs my way I'd be interested in reviewing. I'm curious.
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.