Open Sourcing ContentPeer Review’s Effect on Quality

About me

● Bruno Skvorc, Croatia● PHP Editor, SitePoint.com (PhpMaster.com)● Developer Evangelist at Diffbot.com

Twitter: @bitfallsG+: +BrunoSkvorcGithub: SwaderEmail: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com

Open Source Content

● Open Source is more than Code

Peer Review

Reviewers need to be:● qualified● respectful● genuinely interested● traditional model = meh● open access model = meh

Peer Review

SitePoint:● a magazine, not a blog● all posts paid● budget vs. traffic matters● expenses--, quality++ … how?● not a fit for traditional peer review● not a fit for “gold open access”

SitePoint’s Peer Review

● Github / Gitlab to the rescue● one repo per channel● PHP channel pioneer

SitePoint’s Peer Review

Closed by default,open by request

SitePoint’s Peer Review

● in depth guidelines● semi-strict rules (best practices, etc.)

SitePoint’s Peer Review

● no moar Trello plz ew● active communication● more issues and Slack, less email

SitePoint’s Peer Review

Mass pings discouraged but allowedIndividual pings preferred

Categories Table● competencies● preferences● notes

SitePoint’s Peer Review

SitePoint’s Peer Review

Review types:

● skim and comment● typo fixes (suggestions or pull requests)● other fixes (suggestions or pull requests)● opinions● alternative approaches● etc...

SitePoint’s Peer Review

Rule of three

● three or more reviews● two weeks● urgency

SitePoint’s Peer Review

● rewards● regular Authors● gamification (soon)● automation (sooner)

SitePoint’s Peer ReviewResults

SitePoint’s Peer Review

Peer review gave us:

● higher payouts● appreciation towards authors● more traffic, fewer expenses● more advertisers● noticeably higher quality

SitePoint’s Peer Review

Closed doors = lameOpenness with content = greatCollaboration on content = greater

Potential gain > risk of content theft

Contact

Twitter: @bitfallsG+: +BrunoSkvorcGithub: SwaderEmail: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com

Joind.in: https://joind.in/14461