New Auto Bounty Text

[jeffreykoury]

Describe the solution you'd like ResearchHub Foundation would like to change the automated peer review copy to reflect some integral changes to how we are systematizing and awarding the paid peer review initiative. New Copy:

ResearchHub Foundation is assigning a peer review bounty of $150 in ResearchCoin (RSC) to incentivize the peer review of this preprint. Anyone can perform a peer review and receive rewards from upvotes/tips, but only those who provide a high-quality, thorough peer review are eligible for the bounty. We strongly encourage you to read the Peer Reviewing on ResearchHub guide with examples of acceptable peer reviews and additional information.

Requirements:

1. Your review must be submitted during the 14-day submission window starting on the day this bounty was opened.
2. At the start, briefly mention your credentials.
3. Include a mention of the version of the preprint you are reviewing (e.g. 1st, 2nd etc.). Make sure you review the most updated version available.
4. Use the rating system in the "Peer Reviews" tab for all 5 criteria (overall, impact, methods, results, discussion) but the content within each is flexible (in-line comments can be used here instead of a block of text in each section).
5. You must provide detailed pros or cons, for each figure within the preprint, including any supplementary material.
6. Include a section at the end of your review highlighting your areas of strengths and weaknesses as a reviewer.
7. Plagiarism and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) generation for any purpose will not be tolerated.

Editors will review and award up to 3 rigorous peer reviews within 1 week following the submission window closure. Awardees will be notified. All decisions are final.

Additional context File to update: https://github.com/ResearchHub/researchhub-backend/blob/80082ffa20a369a89e4cdc4c1ebfb88c311de4db/src/discussion/reaction_views.py#L410-L461

[jeffreykoury]

@koutst slightly edited the text to truncate it so it doesn't prompt the "read more" when it's posted on ResearchHub. Thank you!

[llvee]

@jeffreykoury

Is ResearchHub on board with the original DeSci motiviations of trying not to gatekeep researchers from participating based on credentials solely?

For example, if someone without any credentials submits a high quality peer review that is equally comparable to someone with credentials may it still be accepted or no?

If no what is the reasoning behind this? I do understand the view of seeing studies as personal marketing essentially for researchers, reviewers & credentials contributing to better results. Just curious about this, is this the best channel to ask these questions?

[jeffreykoury]

Describe the solution you'd like ResearchHub Foundation would like to adjust the automated peer review copy.

New Copy:

ResearchHub Foundation is assigning a peer review grant of $150 in ResearchCoin (RSC) to incentivize the peer review of this preprint. Anyone can perform a peer review and receive rewards from upvotes/tips, but only those who provide a high-quality, thorough peer review are eligible for the grant. We strongly encourage you to read the Peer Reviewing on ResearchHub guide with examples of acceptable peer reviews and additional information.

Requirements:

1. Your review must be submitted during the 14-day submission window from the day this grant was initiated.
2. Mention your credentials and include your areas of relevant expertise and limitations in assessing this preprint.
3. Include the version of the preprint you are reviewing (e.g. 1st, 2nd, etc.). Make sure you review the most updated version available.
4. Use the rating system in the "Peer Reviews" tab for all 5 criteria (overall assessment, introduction, methods, results, discussion) but the content within each is flexible (in-line comments can be used instead of a block of text in each section).
5. For each figure, including supplementary material, you must provide a detailed assessment (pros or cons).
6. Plagiarism and blatant use of artificial intelligence (AI) generation will not be tolerated.

Editors will review and award up to 3 high-quality peer reviews within 1 week following the closure of the submission window. Awardees will be notified. All decisions are final.

Additional context File to update: https://github.com/ResearchHub/researchhub-backend/blob/80082ffa20a369a89e4cdc4c1ebfb88c311de4db/src/discussion/reaction_views.py#L410-L461

[llvee]

@jeffreykoury is there a better channel for the questions I asked above? If so what is that? I shared the questions above here intentionally as I am constantly trying to find better, more efficient communication methods.

[jeffreykoury]

@jeffreykoury is there a better channel for the questions I asked above? If so what is that? I shared the questions above here intentionally as I am constantly trying to find better, more efficient communication methods.

Hey @githubbin765 please shoot me over a DM in our discord (discord.gg/researchhub). The TLDR is we don't have a limitation on the credentials for someone to review. The new profile pages do help give context to readers/scientific community on who is making the peer review claims with some credentials/achievements BUT for the distribution of the $150 in RSC for the review it will be strictly based on the quality of the content.

[llvee]

@jeffreykoury I am unable to reach out directly due to privacy settings, tried some work arounds without success it seems. Is there an interface specifically for peer reviews that I can access via a web url? Are there also other tasks that aren't presently in GH issues that the team could use some help with?