Very cool, I hadn't seen this! I'm thinking specifically about checks that happen prior to peer review (i.e., do we want this on our preprint server?), although in practice it may be hard to draw a bright line between those checks and review itself.

Do we need a server/publisher-agnostic taxonomy of these checks, so that authors and readers can see at a glance which services do what (and, potentially, how well)?

I can see research libraries having a stake in this: we're talking trust indicators at the @arl.org Fall Meeting the week after next.

I hope you keep writing and researching and publishing, even if it’s about distant and abstruse topics. It’s not stupid, it’s beautiful, because it’s a testament to the curiosity and care they’re trying to eradicate.

And to @matthewarcher.bsky.social and colleagues on keeping questions of political economy front and center in the face of interoperability imaginaries.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

Sure thing! I'm hoping to wrap up the course (www.theoryofchange.org/theory-of-ch...) by the end of September, so let's find a time to chat around then.

The end of an era!

Very cool, I’d love to chat about this sometime! I’m brand-new to ToC but hoping to use it in our program planning at @arl.org.

Great that these issues are familiar! Are you seeing librarians being asked to support theory of change development, specifically?

Also, I'd love to see librarians and #EvidenceSynthesis folks discussing this rapid review: how do we incorporate and sequence evidence from both the research literature and stakeholders themselves?

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...