Not a member, not a researcher. Just got interested in crossref for the neat API (crossref_commons works great). And due to a recent interest in e-cigarette junk science; whose proliferation is IMO partly caused by the medical journals and their lackluster UX.
Anyway, what I think (from my perspective) fairly interesting would be an aggregation system for study reviews. Not just studies referencing each other, but particular short assessments as pubpeer or sciencemediacenter did them. (Neither seems very active anymore?)
And since none of them have an API (or no official one), and some of these reviews are buried in the blogosphere/indieweb even; I thought about how a distributed comment collection format could be structured. TBH, didnât give it much thought:
{
"http://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10/foobar2": {
"tags": {
"đ„": "smolder-study"
},
"comments": [
{"note": "Detailed testing material/data absent"},
{"url": "http://blog.post/xyz"}
]
}
"http://0-doi-org.libus.csd.mu.edu/10/xyz3": {
"tags": {
"đ„": "causal-transposition"
},
}
}
This would still require manually registering such pools. But OTOH allowed conversion of e.g. pubpeer into a simple JSON dump. Perhaps even a <link rel=crossref-collect href="/.well-known/crosscomments.json">
for detecting such archives.
Would something like this fall within crossrefâs realm or interest? (Despite touchy topic and such).