Collaborative Document Evaluation : An Alternative Approach to Classic Peer Review

Abstract

Research papers are usually evaluated via peer review. However, peer review has limitations in evaluating research papers. In this paper, Scienstein and the new idea of 'collaborative document evaluation' are presented. Scienstein is a project to evaluate scientific papers collaboratively based on ratings, links, annotations and classifications by the scientific community using the internet. In this paper, critical success factors of collaborative document evaluation are analyzed. That is the scientists- motivation to participate as reviewers, the reviewers- competence and the reviewers- trustworthiness. It is shown that if these factors are ensured, collaborative document evaluation may prove to be a more objective, faster and less resource intensive approach to scientific document evaluation in comparison to the classical peer review process. It is shown that additional advantages exist as collaborative document evaluation supports interdisciplinary work, allows continuous post-publishing quality assessments and enables the implementation of academic recommendation engines. In the long term, it seems possible that collaborative document evaluation will successively substitute peer review and decrease the need for journals.