Cambridge University Press is launching Hypothesis social annotation on key Cambridge Core publications to support annotations from authors and editors at the Press and the wider scholarly community.
Spotlight on Annotation for Transparent Inquiry: Finalist for 2018 ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing
ALPSP interviews Nisha Doshi of Cambridge University Press, Heather Staines of Hypothesis, and Sebastian Karcher of the Qualitative Data Repository about increasing transparency in qualitative research.
How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv
An interview with three preprints services directors on using annotation in open science research, peer review, and publication, republished from the Center for Open Science.
Annotation is now live on preprint servers hosted on the Center for Open Science's Open Science Framework.
Cambridge University Press, the Qualitative Data Repository and Hypothesis are honored to announce that their joint project, Annotation for Transparent Inquiry, is a finalist for the 2018 ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing.
Cambridge University Press, the Qualitative Data Repository & Hypothesis join to pioneer making qualitative research more transparent with annotation.
Hypothesis and the COS partner to integrate annotation into Open Science Framework preprint services, enabling researchers to engage, discuss, and share in their regular workflows.
AGU and eJournalPress integrate open annotation into all AGU journals to to facilitate dialog among reviewers, editors and authors during peer review.
Editors, reviewers and scholars are recognizing the potential for open annotation to streamline and improve traditional forms of peer review and create a framework for new review practices.
Qualitative Data Repository Teams with Hypothesis to Develop Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI)
Originally published 12 May 2017 on the QDR blog by Sebastian Karcher. Scholars are increasingly being called on – by journal editors, funders, and each other – to “show their work.” Social science is only fully understandable and evaluable if researchers share the data and analysis that underpin their conclusions. Making qualitative social science transparent [...]