A few months ago, we shared our thoughts on “Making the Case for a PID-Optimized World“, including a high-level PID-optimized workflow. But, to make this world a reality, we need to look in more detail at how persistent identifiers are, or could be, used in all research workflows — from grant application to publication. A number of PID experts from around the world have been working on exactly this for several years, starting with a series of meetings in Singapore, London, and Portland, OR. Now, as part of the Jisc PID roadmap project, we expect to publish PID-optimized workflows for funding, content publication, and data publication later this year, all of which have been reviewed by community volunteers.
In the meantime, in honor of this year’s Peer Review Week, we are pleased to share a draft PID-optimized peer review workflow — a nice tie-in with the theme of Identifiers in Peer Review!
This is very much a work in progress, and we’d welcome your feedback and comments. We’ve focused here on traditional peer review for journal articles, so we know that more detail is needed about other forms of peer review, but what else is missing? For example, should we include the underlying research data (which may already have a PID) that is submitted along with the article and, if so, how and when? What about other forms of content associated with an article that have their own PIDs, such as Registered Reports? Is the workflow itself clear enough? Should we include the Publons workflow?
You can add comments in the workflow itself and/or share your feedback here. Either way, we look forward to hearing your thoughts!
A big thank you to Kath Burton of Routledge/Tayor & Francis for her help with the workflow.