Great to see this moving forward!
Great to see this moving forward!
Thanks for this!
I just wanted to add that we can evaluate work that is under review at a traditional journal. Also, having your work evaluated by The Unjournal does not prevent you from submitting it to a traditional journal (before, during, or after). The Unjournal gives you more feedback and a quantified evaluation sooner; it doesn't slow you down or limit your options.
But, as Ryan suggests, at this point in our trajectory we prefer to evaluate work early in the process, rather than work that is very close to being accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.
(Also, see our guidelines for evaluators for a view of the feedback and ratings/predictions we ask for.)
I am a Global Health and Development editor at The Unjournal. In brief, our mission is to organize and fund public, journal-independent evaluation and rating of working papers. Right now we are focusing on quantitative work informing global priorities, and my area focuses on global health and international development.
I am writing because I want people to send me working papers (pre-publication) that are decision-relevant to organizations working in global health and international development. [1] Anyone can submit paper suggestions to [email protected]. If you prefer, authors can submit work through our quick submission form HERE, and others can suggest work using this form.
I think two especially useful cases are:
The rest of this post explains in more detail: what The Unjournal is, our review process, why we’re doing this, what we’re looking for in a paper, and who can submit.
The Unjournal (evaluations are here) is the brainchild of David Reinstein. Its mission is to offer clear, public pre-publication expert review of working papers. There are two motivations behind this project. The first is that researchers can do better work if they are able to more easily get high quality feedback on their work. The second is that the entire research ecosystem can benefit from these reviews being public. We pay expert reviewers for their time and we give awards for especially high quality research that we evaluate.
The initial focus of The Unjournal is on quantitative work that informs global priorities, especially in economics, policy, and social science. I’m an editor for global health and international development.
While our process runs similarly to an academic journal, we do not publish articles. Instead, we link to working papers and publish reviews (which we call 'evaluations') and author responses.
The process starts with editors screening lists of working papers created from submissions or based on our knowledge of the research area. Once a working paper is selected, we contact the authors to ask if they would like to be involved in the process. Author involvement allows authors to converse with reviews and/or respond to reviews. It is not mandatory, but we prefer if authors are involved.
We then aim to find two reviewers per paper. Reviewers are experts in the research area and are paid for their reviews. Reviewers have the choice to remain anonymous or not. They read the work and fill out standardized review forms.
We then publish the reviews of the work on our webpage (see here) alongside brief comments from the editor and responses from the authors if they so wish.
If the journal system already exists, then why have something that looks kind of like a journal and offers sort of similar evaluations?
We think The Unjournal adds value to the existing journal system in a number of important ways. For example:
Ideal papers for me are those that are likely to be decision-relevant to the work of organizations in the international development or global health space. Papers should be quantitative and pre-publication. Anyone can submit a paper.
The easiest way to submit a paper is simply to email me about it at [email protected]
Different disciplines have different names for these. We're interested in working papers, pre-prints, papers hosted on places like arxiv, but not work that is published in academic journals or under review. We're aiming to come into the process before submission to, or publication in, an academic journal.
This paper looks like the most promising intervention to improve air quality that I have seen. The authors even have an explicit cost-effectiveness analysis. I would love to see it critically evaluated. (I took a stab at doing so here.)
Brilliant! Thank you!