Giuliano Maciocci


  1. ScienceBeam - using computer vision to extract PDF data
    Blogpost by Daniel Ecer, Data Scientist, and Giuliano Maciocci, Head of Product

    A progress update on ScienceBeam is now available here

  2. Designing Progressive Enhancement Into The Academic Manuscript
    The academic manuscript is evolving into a complex, deeply interconnected digital artefact. We need to consider a design strategy to accommodate the transition.

    The result of this thinking is now a new way of publishing, with the launch of the Executable Research Article (ERA).

    Find out more here

  3. Science Forum: Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript

    It is indeed a customised version of, which has since been made available to other publishers. You can read more about our collaboration here.

    This is a reply.
  4. Reproducible Document Stack – supporting the next-generation research article
    A reproducible document

    A live demo of the Reproducible Document concept is now live on eLife here. A blog post detailing progress on the project can be found here.

  5. Gender Equity: Addressing recruitment at the departmental level

    Working link to the twitter conversation here

    This is a reply.
  6. eLife Innovation Sprint 2018: Project roundup

    Plaudit has now been funded by the eLife Innovation Initiative, with the goal of creating and testing a prototype of the tool based on OSS preprints. Find out more about the project here.

    Added by the eLife Product Team

  7. Composing reproducible manuscripts using R Markdown

    Also of potential interest, Stencila just released a new tool for streamlining the creation of custom Docker images for research projects:

    This is a reply.
  8. Enabling scientific discussion on eLife with Hypothesis

    Thank you for your kind feedback and suggestions. As it happens, started off, and is still available as, a browser plugin which you can use to annotate almost anything on the web. What we did was help its underlying technology more seamlessly integrate within a publisher's own infrastructure and workflows.

    I like your suggestions regarding the StackExchange-like voting system, and I'll be passing it on to for consideration.

    eLife Product Team

    This is a reply.
  9. Meeting report: Visions and versions and the future of peer review

    Thanks Alexandra, we appreciate your feedback.

    While there are several potential post-publication peer review strategies being explored across the industry, including various forms of categorised numerical ratings as you've described, many are often based on two key assumptions: that readers will return to a paper on the publisher's platform after they have first read or downloaded it, and that a diverse group of reviewers could distil their individual qualitative assessments of a paper into sufficiently uniform quantitative scores.

    As more data is needed to validate these assumptions and inform any future strategies, we continue to welcome our readers' and contributor's views on these issues.

    eLife Product Team

    This is a reply.
  10. Meeting report: Visions and versions and the future of peer review

    That's good to know, thank you.

    This is a reply.