> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/readme-1/plan-of-action.md). # Plan of action Building a "best feasible plan".. {% hint style="warning" %} What is this *Unjournal*?... See [our summary](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/readme-1.md#in-a-nutshell). {% endhint %} ## Post-pilot goals See the vision and broad plan presented [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C5CE8X_rgGEZnewdKFsbxSGw7l0PxmQvr8F4tv7ege8/edit) (and embedded below), u*pdated August 2023.* {% embed url="" %} ## Pilot targets
What we need our pilot (~12 months) to demonstrate 1. We actually **"do something."** 2. We can provide **credible reviews and ratings** that have value as measures of research quality comparable to (or better than) traditional journal systems. 3. We identify important work that **informs global priorities.** 4. We boost work in innovative and transparent and replicable formats (especially **dynamic documents**). 5. **Authors engage** with our process and find it useful. 6. (As a push) Universities, grantmakers, and other arbiters **assign value** to *Unjournal* ratings.
***Updated:*** [*Partial update 10 Dec 2022.*](#user-content-fn-1)[^1] ## Building research "unjournal" See [here](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/grants-and-proposals/acx-ltff-grant-proposal-as-submitted-successfull.md) for proposed specifics. ### Setup and team :heavy\_check\_mark: [Pilot: Building a founding committee](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/action-and-progress/pilot-steps/action-build-founding-committee.md) :heavy\_check\_mark:/:hourglass\_flowing\_sand: **Define the broad scope** of our research interest and **key overriding principles**. Light-touch, to also be attractive to aligned academics :hourglass\_flowing\_sand: Build **"editorial-board-like"** teams with subject or area expertise *Status: Mostly completed/decided for pilot phase* ### Create a set of rules for "submission and management" * Which projects enter the review system (relevance, minimal quality, stakeholders, any red lines or "musts") * :hourglass\_flowing\_sand: See [here](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/policies-projects-evaluation-workflow/considering-projects.md) for a first pass. * How projects are to be submitted * How reviewers are to be assigned and compensated *Status: Mostly completed/decided for pilot phase;* will review after initial trial ### Rules for reviews/assessments * To be done on the chosen open platform (Kotahi/Sciety) unless otherwise infeasible (*10 Dec 2022 update)* * Share, advertise, promote this; have efficient meetings and presentations * Establish links to all open-access bibliometric initiatives (to the extent feasible) * Harness and encourage additional tools for quality assessment, considering cross-links to prediction markets/Metaculus, to coin-based 'ResearchHub', etc. See our [guidelines for evaluators](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/policies-projects-evaluation-workflow/evaluation/guidelines-for-evaluators.md). *Status: Mostly completed/decided for pilot phase;* will review after the initial trial ### Further steps See our [12-month plan](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/grants-and-proposals/acx-ltff-grant-proposal-as-submitted-successfull.md#the-twelve-month-plan).
Key next steps (pasted from FTX application) The key elements of the plan: Build a "founding committee" of 5–8 experienced and enthusiastic EA-aligned/adjacent researchers at EA orgs, research academics, and practitioners (e.g., draw from speakers at recent EA Global meetings). 1. Host a meeting (and shared collaboration space/document), to come to a consensus/set of practical principles. 2. Post and present our consensus (coming out of this meeting) on key fora. After a brief "followup period" (\~1 week), consider adjusting the above consensus plan in light of feedback, and repost (and move forward). 3. Set up the basic platforms for posting and administering reviews and evaluations and offering curated links and categorizations of papers and projects. ~~Note: I am strongly leaning towards as the main platform, which has indicated willingness to give us a flexible ‘experimental space~~’ Update: Kotahi/Sciety seems a more flexible solution. 4. Reach out to researchers in relevant areas and organizations and ask them to "submit" their work for "feedback and potential positive evaluations and recognition," and for a chance at a prize. *The Unjournal* will *not be an exclusive outlet.* Researchers are free to also submit the same work to 'traditional journals' at any point. However, whether submitted elsewhere or not, papers accepted by *The Unjournal* must be publicly hosted, with a DOI. Ideally the whole project is maintained and updated, with all materials, in a single location.\ \ 21 Sep 2022 status:\_ 1-3 mostly completed. We have a good working and management group. We decided a platform and we're configuring it, and we have an interim workaround. We've reached out to researchers and organizations and got some good responses, but we need to find more platforms to disseminate and advertise this. We've identified and are engaging with four papers for the initial piloting. We aim to put out a larger prize-driven call soon and intake about 10 more papers or projects.
Aside: "Academic-level" work for EA research orgs (building on post at onscienceandacademia.org) *The approach below is largely integrated into the* Unjournal *proposal, but this is a suggestion for how organizations like RP might consider how to get feedback and boost credibility:* 1. **Host article** (or dynamic research project or 'registered report') on OSF or another place allowing time stamping & DOIs (see [my resources list in Airtable](https://airtable.com/shraTY0WcwsjJSANs) for a start) 2. Link this to [PREreview](https://prereview.org/reviews) (or similar tool or site) to solicit feedback and evaluation without requiring exclusive publication rights (again, see [Airtable list](https://airtable.com/shraTY0WcwsjJSANs)) 3. **Directly solicit feedback** from EA-adjacent partners in academia and other EA-research orgs *Next steps towards this approach:* * **Build our own systems** (assign "editors") to do this without bias and with incentives * Build standard metrics for interpreting these reviews (possibly incorporating prediction markets) * Encourage them to leave their feedback through the PREreview or another platform Also: Commit to publish academic reviews or share in our internal group for further evaluation and reassessment or benchmarking of the ‘PREreview’ type reviews above (perhaps taking the [FreeOurKnowledge pledge relating to this](https://github.com/FreeOurKnowledge/website/issues/40)).
*Status: We are still working with Google Docs and building an external survey interface. We plan to integrate this with PubPub over the coming months (August/Sept. 2023)* [^1]: *See more detailed updates in the* [Action and progress](/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/action-and-progress.md) *section.* --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/~/changes/536/readme-1/plan-of-action.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.