# Tech scoping

Updated see Gdoc on 'Editorial Management Tech needs [HERE](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BXamZhkGj7SR2G3Ik6F9KXoRt-oG1Z6pIWWTIcKB6Jg/edit) and embedded at bottom (to do: integrate these discussions)

{% hint style="info" %}
We are eligible/may be eligible for _some_ nonprofit discounts
{% endhint %}

## Core needs

1. **Hosting 'qualitative' evaluation content:** A place to host the evaluations (as well as the authors’ responses and the editors' comments), allowing the public to read them in an attractive and convenient way (and perhaps respond to them). Ideally this will also make the quantitative ratings and predictions prominent and connected to the evaluations. This system needs to allow evaluations of _any research that is publicly hosted and has a DOI._
2.  **DOIs, Bibliometrics, Google Scholar:** We need these evaluations to be visible in "bibliometric systems". They need a _DOI_, they need to show up in Google scholar and other search tools. The _references_ cited in the evaluations (including the original paper) should also appear in the bibliometric record. Right now 'CrossRef' seems to be the leading system for this.

    [_Ideally also..._](#user-content-fn-1)[^1]
3. **Curation and organization:** A place to bring together all of the evaluations we have done as the sort of center of our project, to explain it and get positive attention, as well as engage participation and readership.
4. **'Editorial management**': A tool to coordinate our management process (submissions, evaluations, et cetera)
5.  **Hosting and open-analysis of 'quantitative' ratings and meta-data:** A place to organize the evaluation data, particularly the quantitative ratings and predictions, in ways that people can analyze and use.

    Ideally also...

### Some other desirable capabilities

* Ways to enable evaluators and others to do collaborative annotation on pre-prints
* Integrations with other platforms including prediction markets and OSF
* Platforms for people to engage in other ways, perhaps up- and downrating evaluations etc

### Further discussion [HERE](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DMoliF6aDrX76zKaZMWWCckNBgaG1XLTJ3p51Mz-R6Y/edit#heading=h.2x6lqmpl319) ("Unjournal platform discussion")

We have a partially-built system combining Sciety, Kotahi, and Hypothes.is. However, other tools and bespoke work will be needed to achieve some of the goals stated above.

2023 Update: We have moved mainly to PubPub, at least for hosting evaluation output (see [https://unjournal.pubpub.org/](https://unjournal.pubpub.org/))

## Partial restatement and update, 2023

{% embed url="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BXamZhkGj7SR2G3Ik6F9KXoRt-oG1Z6pIWWTIcKB6Jg/edit" %}

\\

1. Ideally also, this would update automatically. We might also want to give some nice analysis and visualization for this (although we could do that in one of the other pages, simply bringing in the data from this place where it’s stored). An API and link to other data archives could be useful.

[^1]: Ideally, this tool should also give us ways of making our evaluations visible and prominent across a range of modes that someone may encounter the original research.
