Rapid discovery requires open communication, “organic” peer review among collaborators, and iteration of results. Yet collaboration places a burden on scientists’ time and attention. We are refining processes that reduce that burden by deploying our editorial subject experts to seed, mine, and traffic discussions and content — reversing the role of traditional journal editors. Instead of serving as gatekeepers, our facilitators work as peers with research teams, helping to communicate findings and insights to an ever wider audience.
Rapid Science Open, a work in progress, is a continuum of the Collaboration Platform where early findings, insights and reviews are submitted to a preprint repository with optional peer-reviewed publication.
- Continually updated Evidence Reviews are state-of-the-art, nuanced dispatches written and maintained by our editorial staff. Project participants are co-authors, contextualizing their latest findings and insights with the current published evidence.
- Micro-results from the team – e.g., negative results, N-of-1 studies, posters, and incomplete datasets (often lost in closed notebooks) – can be cited and given provenance in the Evidence Review to challenge or support the published evidence.
- Cases Central is a database for submitting and discussing anonymized patient data such as outlier responses to trial drugs and combinations. Data is submitted by template, free text, or uploaded document, and is standardized by RS.