#Gitup review software
#Gitup review code
#Gitup review free

This in turn facilitates the assessment of quality of reviews and reviewers. Reviewers would also be able to claim credit and be acknowledged for their tracked contributions, and thereby quantify their impact on a project as a supply of individual prestige. As all code, data, and other content are supplied, and peers would be able to assess methods and results comprehensively, which in turn increases rigor, transparency, and replicability. Peer review would operate more like a social network, with specific tasks (or repositories) being developed, distributed, and promoted through GitHub. Making peer review a social process by distributing reviews to numerous peers, divides the burden and allows individuals to focus on their particular area of expertise. Given these properties, it is clear that GitHubВ could be used to implement some style of peer evaluation and that it is well-suited to fine-grained iteration between reviewers, editors, and authors ( Ghosh et al., 2012), given that all parties are identified.

This then can potentially leverage a new mode of prestige, conferred through how work is engaged with and digested by the wider community and not by the packaging in which it is contained (analogous to the prestige often associated with journal brands). For scholarly research, this could ultimately shift the power dynamic in deciding what gets viewed and re-used away from editors, journals, or publishers to individual researchers. Prestige at GitHubВ can be further measured quantitatively as a social product through the star-rating system, which is derived from the number of followers or watchers and the number of times a repository has been forked (i.e., copied) or commented on. All contributions are made public as a way for users to obtain merit.

GitHubВ also allows users to form organizations as a way of grouping contributors together to manage access to different repositories. Another item that GitHubВ supports is a checklist, a set of items that have a binary state, which can be used to implement and store the status of a set of actions. Issues can also be tagged (labelled in a manner that allows grouping of multiple issues with the same tag), and assigned to one or more participants, who are then responsible for that issue. Users can watch repositories or files of interest and be notified of any new issues or commits (updates), and someone who has discussed an issue can also be notified of any new discussions of that same issue. GitHubВ also includes a variety of notification options for both users and project repositories.

#Gitup review code

In addition, GitHubВ offers the ability to discuss specific issues, where multiple people can contribute to such a discussion, and discussions can refer to code segments or code changes and vice versa (but note that GitHubВ can also be used for non-code content). It is important that contributions are reviewed before they are merged into a code base, and GitHubprovides this functionality.

#Gitup review software

Software review is an important part of software development, particularly for collaborative efforts.

Despite its capability for not just sharing code, but also executable papers that automatically knit together text, data, and analyses into a living document, the true power of GitHubВ appears to be acknowledged infrequently by academic researchers ( Priem, 2013). It holds many potentially desirable features that might be transferable to a system of peer review ( von Muhlen, 2011), such as its openness, version control and project management and collaborative functionalities, and system of accreditation and attribution for contributions. GitHub, launched in 2008, works as a Web-based GitВ service and has become the de facto social coding platform for collaborative and open source development and code sharing ( Kosner, 2012 Thung et al., 2013) ( /).

#Gitup review free

GitВ is a free and open-source distributed version control system developed by the LinuxВ community in 2005 ( /).

Two-stage peer review and Registered Reports.

This section outlines what would a model of GitHub-style peer review could look like. This is adapted from our recent paper in F1000 Research, entitled вЂњ A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.вЂќ Due to its rather monstrous length, IвЂ™ll be posting chunks of the text here in sequence over the next few weeks to help disseminate it in more easily digestible bites.