To do list

A list of what is still to do to make the grassroots journals better.

What is necessary to build a community with multiple grassroots journals (procedures to start one, oversight, etc.) is not mentioned below, but discussed on the blog for grassroots scientific publishing.

Organisation

In case of trouble other scientific journals have an academic society or publisher behind them. Once we have several grassroots journals we should also create organisations for groups of journals. Until then journals could have a supervisory board, which can invite and remove editors and interpret the Terms of Reference. It is also responsible for the interactions with other grassroots journals. Scientific board members should not be editors themselves, they can be reviewers.

Software

The comment boxes should be extended to make it easy for the people writing assessments to add assessment categories and to add a link to any web annotations. In a next step also alternative systems for the assessment should be possible.

Automatically add annotations, if available, as specific comments to the moderation queue.

Allow for replies (need to automatically get the same comment type as the comment replied to).

List comment type on the administration panel for the comments and make it possible to change the comment type for single comments (already works for “bulk changes” and on the edit comment page).

A moderation tool for the web annotations, which allows the editors to moved the annotations from the group “Homogenisation Journal” to “Public” and the other way around. This should include the ability to add annotations from other grassroots journals to our “Homogenisation Journal”.

Editors should get a warning on their dashboard that annotations have been added to the public stream that could be moved to the journal stream, as well as of comments submitted to the articles they are editor of. On request the editor should also get a email notification. Authors should be able to get an email notification if there are any changes to the assessment (accepted comments or journal annotations).

When the first version of an assessment is written, it would be good to be able to show this to the authors for comments before it is published to all. This would improve the quality of the assessments.

Versioning of the assessments and making it possible to see the state at a certain date.

Make it easy to copy a grassroots journal and start your own.

The assessments should also get a doi so that they can be cited.

There should not only be categories for the type of study (validation, homogenisation methods, methodology, etc.), but also for the authors of the study, the names of the assessors, algorithms, regions, etc. Editors of journals should be able to specify arbitrary categories that fit to their field of study.

Once the number of assessed articles becomes larger, the journal needs an advanced search where the title, author, journal, year, etc. can be specified.

Make a WordPress plugin with short codes that allows the editors to give the doi and have it be replaced by a reference linking to our assessment.

Make a WordPress plugin so that the readers can up- and downvote the articles we did not assess yet to indicate the ones they would like to see assessed.

A plugin that converts references suggested by readers in the comments into an editable proposal for a reference entry in the reference database.

Good social media previews, RRS and email feeds. Connection to Fediverse.

Clear the backend of WordPress information.

Better lay-out.