Victor Venema

Annotations

1. Innovator Story: Wrestling the Octopus

   Scientific problem Hypothesis Method/protocol Results/data Analysis Interpretation Implementation/translation

   I love the idea, but some feedback from a climatologist.

   As a young post-doc I did mostly experimental work on clouds and this structure would have fitted well.

   Now I do climatology and work with data others have generated (we need data over centuries from all over the world), as well as many methodological work (propose new analysis methods or test them). With my current work this structure would either not add value (were problem, method, analysis and interpretation do not make much sense individually) or for some theoretical papers be impossible (because it does not follow this structure at all).

   So maybe we need an additional flexible category, were people are allowed to dump whatever is good science.

2. Scientific Publishing: A new twist on peer review

   an approach in which the authors will control the decision about publication and how they respond to the comments made by peer reviewers

   That is wonderful. I wrote a blog post about this in March and in June most of it is working on eLife. A good day. :-)

   I expect that this system can radically improve the quality of peer review. The reviewer becomes a friend and helper this way, no longer the grim reaper giving "advice".