Review summary

Interpretation and experience: I'd suggest that the authors should interpret my review as someone who is interested in the open science movement. I'd be happy to experiment with such a proposal myself, and the UI was quite excellent. That said, I'm also skeptical about a pitch to change the overall system radically without careful experimentation and evaluation of unintended consequences.

Fund/not fund: I wouldn't fund the proposal as it stands now. I think it needs revision on the pitch side, because I'm having trouble envisioning how this works - particularly if I'm not currently reading/working on the proposal on this platform. I also think it needs revision on the measurement of impact side.

Most important advice: Imagine the audience is far more skeptical of what you're pitching than you are.

Cite this as
Casey Greene (2016) . Thinklab. doi:10.15363/thinklab.d168

Creative Commons License