As regular ScienceBlog readers know, Coturnix is now employed by PLoS One as their Online Community Manager. He is already a prominent blogger on ScienceBlogs and now his reputation got a further boost by a thread over at Daily Kos. Bora ( Coturnix) is a science shooting star! In a community email (I guess I'm on his list because I'm an Academic Editor at PLoS One) he asked us how to increase commenting on PLoS One:


He correctly points out that commenting is a feedback cycle:


However, as I'm sure he's also aware, quantity is not achieved easily. For one, you have to understand what the paper is about. This alone will already reduce the possible number of commenters by a substantial amount. Moreover, what is critical to any such effort is that the risk of commenting is offset by something else. In science, if you comment critically, there is the considerable risk of harming your career. There has to be something which can offset this risk. One obvious solution to this is, of course, anonymous posting. The same reasoning applies to anonymous peer-review which takes place before publication in PLoS One. I don't think this is a good way to go for PLoS One. A paper is what scientists get judged by, so inviting anonymous slandering on a paper is like asking for graffiti on your car or letting someone write expletives on your resume before you send it off to your prospective employer. Better nothing than something bad. Named comments enable civility in this respect. Coturnix asked us to do the following:


There are a number of suggestions I can make right away. None of these are originally mine or even new, they have been implemented on several community-websites all over the place:

1. Implement user ranking. Start with identifying PLoS One editors, staff and authors, then reward verified full names and affiliations. Add on top of that increasing rank for number of contributions and their quality. With this use ranking system should of course come the possibility to make your PLoS One profile a showcase for your academic achievements at PLoS One, including links to the papers the user authored and all his/her comments.
2. Make scholarly commenting easier by implementing a citation engine that lets users easily enter citations - at the very least citations to PLoS One papers.
3. Which reminds me: PLoS One papers cited in a PLoS One paper should be highlighted and directly linked in the paper where it is cited and not only in the reference list (right now, even there is no direct link!!).
4. Papers should also be browsable by most cited, most downloaded, most annotated and highest rank (on a rating system).
5. Individual comments should also get a "thumbs up" or some other binary feedback like that (think digg.com) to further bolster the commenters reputation.

I'm sure Coturnix is well aware of these possibilities, but hearing them from others will reinforce his resolve to implement them ASAP All of these still don't solve the more general problem of online activity: unlike peer-review, online activity seems still to have the negative image of wasting time. I have heard through the grapevine that I might even have missed job opportunities because of my web activities! The trick is to show scientists a solution to build reputation online, but in a way that doesn't make reviewers/employers wonder "is he only commenting online or does he also do actual work?"

Now go out and spread the word! What are you waiting for?