 Next up we have Jenny Ann Dabral with the public commenting on manuscripts submitted for publication when it started wise pros and cons. So, welcome, Jenny Ann. Hi everyone. I'm Jenny Ann from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and I ask you for your patience because I'm presenting in a language that's not mine and I feel really nervous. Please be patient with my presentation and possible questions. So, I've been presenting a public comment on manuscripts submitted for publication and as we know commenting is very common in preprints. Preprint is a manuscript posted online and everybody interested can read and comment on it but that is no formal peer review in preprints. So, the focus of my presentation is it's on public comments for manuscripts submitted for peer review in a scientific journal, in a formal journal. Here I have a example of a manuscript submitted in a journal for public comments and as we can see here we have many types of comments, comments from the authors, invited reviewers and from the community that means the public and also we have comments from the editors. Here that manuscript was published by this journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics published by the European Geoscience Union and they have a peer review process that's called an interactive review process where the authors submit the manuscript for peer review and the manuscript is accepted, it's published in a forum discussion and gets comments from invited reviewers, by the editor and also from the scientific community and then the editor makes a decision about the manuscript as it's made in the traditional peer review process. And when public comments start in the peer review journals and why and what are the pros and cons of public comments in the peer review process. For this presentation I'm using data from my integrative literature that I conduct in 2022 in Brazil to my thesis and I have a sample of 20 papers addressed in open participation or open peer review, public peer review in scholarly journals and today I'm going to focus on commenting as I mentioned before. And as a result I found that public commenting in scholarly journals they start before open science. The first journal to implement an open peer review model with more comments from the readers while the current anthropology is still published today by the University of Chicago Press and the peer review process is called CA treatment and this CA treatment was applied for review articles and the idea of this CA treatment that the editor after the manuscript is accepted for the peer review process the editors send the manuscript for a list of readers and these readers are divided into two categories. The readers might be experts in the top of the manuscript and the readers also might might be interested in parts of the manuscript and in both cases the readers may add material for the discussion or the interpretation of the results or say nothing about the manuscript. Here I have an overview of the first paper published by the journal in 1996 and in the first image I have our view of the first page and here I have this box here in the second picture and then we may see here the when the manuscript was published and also we have the name of the reviewers with open identities and also they explain to the readers how the comments was incorporated in the manuscript and how the reviewers are recognized it and also in that time reviewers and authors could reply could interact with each other. Here I'm sorry come back here sorry here I have an example they have this star in the CA treatment and this star here in the manuscript means that this edition was made by a suggestion of a reviewer and this is the type of recognition of the reviewers in that time and here we have the comments that was published at the end of the manuscript with the name of the reviewers and here I have some examples that they are applying models of peer review with multiple reviewers and before open science we have these models with this open peer commentary another journal for another disciplines adopt the same model of the current anthropology and then we have after open science we have models with different names as well like public peer review or open peer review discussion and here I have three examples one example from economic field another one from the health science and another one from education field so my data shows that what is the aim of this type of models with public account peer review they have in common the goal of increase the number of reviewers bring new perspectives to the manuscripts and they also are looking for reduced bias of review selection by the editor and improve the quality and development of research and also they are looking for improve the reliability of research if the manuscript is easy to understand to people that are not from the same field of study not from the same discipline and also that are not scientists they are looking for promoting transparency and collaboration the peer review process and also more interaction among authors and reviewers I would like to focus in these two aspects here increase the number of reviewers and bring new perspective to the manuscript because you will have a difference between models before open science and after open science because open science is bringing new types of reviewers to the peer review process for example here in the traditional peer review process we have the editor we have selected reviewers by the editor and we have indicated reviewers by authors but in public comments for example before open science we have members of the scientific community all of these readers from the current anthropology they are scholars from anthropology and from another field of study they can be biologists or even for health science and in after open science we have the public and the public can be scientific members of the scientific community then can be patients no scientists and also they can be professional office scholarly publishing industry and also journalists they can comment on these papers and this type of reviewers is important to note because they will impact the cons and criticism around peer review models with public comments because some experts in peer review they are questioned the qualification of the reviewers and also we have the vulnerability of some reviews identities for example as early career researchers they do not feel comfortable to comment on papers uh authored by senior researchers and for example no scientists and patients they do not feel comfortable to comment in public because they ask you to they like who I am to comment on a paper written by a scientist I don't have nothing to say and also for example when you may not feel comfortable to comment because you may feel afraid of lose your job I don't know and also we have a lack of incentives to comment because the reviewers are not paid and also some people say that we don't not have time to public comment because it's too hard to find reviewers and also public comment can introduce new types of bias in the peer review process such as for example a manipulation of the peer review process by authors and the public and also can be more work for the editor and as a conclusion my data shows that public comment can help to improve the quality of the manuscripts and but this has been applied like a compliment for the peer traditional peer review process and however more studies are required to understand what public comments is adding to peer review process in terms of the expertise and also they are bringing a new role to scholars drawings and peer review because the audience of the scholar journals are changing and broadening by the since the participation of different types of reviewers and more active more active role to readers and and the scholarly journals they can be a bridge between science and society since when we have for example patients engaging the peer review process they are helping not only with the lived experience in terms of a disease for example but also make the manuscript more easier to understand for people who are not scientists or who are from different disciplines and my research has a little limitations for example in terms of terminology, terminology in the peer review process is very inconsistent each model have a different model, a different name and sometimes they do not mean the same thing and not clear in the manuscript that I found and for example here I have an example of our initiative by Nazo to create a standard terminology for peer review to facilitate the understanding of open peer review practice and also the implementation by journals and also I have a limitation in terms of language because I guess I can find more models of open peer review that are not they have they are written in another language that's not English, Portuguese or Spanish and for future work I'm drafting a manuscript about open peer review models with public participation and I'm drawing different full charts explaining these models and how the public can participate and also I'm exploring with my mentors in Illinois different types of expertise in science and citizen science and how different types of expertise can help to improve the peer review process and the quality of research and I'm going to stop here so thank you