Alive Publication
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for letting me review this article. This article brings us a new possibility of alive publication, which may refresh our science publishing system and keep knowledge in circulation updated. Though alive publication is still in its early stage, this is a revolutionary idea and can make its way to the mainstream someday. For this manuscript, I suggest the author consider improving in the following ways.
1) The second section, Materials and Methods, does not list the data and methods but is more like people’s attitudes toward and challenges faced by alive publications. So I suggest changing the heading as well as the “results” heading.
2) The author should consider recapping the current development of alive publications and listing the research questions/objectives/problems to solve in the Introduction. I see that arxiv and similar platforms are mentioned below, but they should also be taken as a background. Otherwise, readers may be confused about whether the idea of alive publication is the author’s invention or is already in practice. It is also necessary to organize a part of literature review for the questions.
3) Be careful of the language used. Many statements are too subjective and lack citations to support them. To list a few,
The Internet will be filled with scientific publications that do not lose their relevance over time (P1; it is just imagination).
It seems unlikely that the author wrote a good-quality article, went through the thorns of peer-reviewing in the journal, but then worsened the quality of the text as a result of subsequent editing. (P2; without following peer reviews, the authors will likely make new mistakes)
Alive publications are often supported over many years, taking up a significant part of the author’s working time. (P3; data?)
This kind of publisher behavior is clearly a crime against science. (P8; crime is too emotional)
If, as a result, the online version of a publication begins to be perceived as the main version and the printed version only as an auxiliary version, then the world of scientific publications will become much richer and more attractive. (P9; it is just imagination)
and so on. I understand the author may take these statements for granted, but we actually need evidence or logical arguments for these.
4) Beyond the advantages, the author should also suggest the disadvantages of alive publications that have not been solved yet for future exploration.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author treated the original topic in an original way. He also transfers the theme of alive publications into practice, when he refers to his own versioned preprint in the list of used Resources.
We could discuss the outlined advantages and disadvantages of article versioning. I agree with the author that the noticeable application of alive publications must go hand in hand with a change in the evaluation of research performance.
I see the issue of alive publications as a realistic vision for the future, but its massive application in practice will be a political issue. I recommend publishing the article.
Author Response
Dear colleague,
Thank you for your interest in my work and for its positive assessment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Document attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author addressed my concerns well. It would be better if the author could have more time to discuss my last point.
Author Response
The author addressed my concerns well. It would be better if the author could have more time to discuss my last point.
4) Beyond the advantages, the author should also suggest the disadvantages of alive publications that have not been solved yet for future exploration.
It seems to me that the main difficulty with mass introduction alive publications is the contradiction between the author's desire to post a fresh version as soon as possible and the site's desire to post only versions approved by reviewers. The solution is known: to allow both versions to coexist online, and leave the reader a choice between them. The contradiction is not antagonistic; it definitely does not lead to a prohibition on alive publications. After all, such a prohibition would be an extremely cruel decision in relation to the authors. This is stated in the article.
The remaining disadvantages are insignificant and, it seems to me, do not deserve separate consideration in the current text. For example, the inertia of traditional publications works against alive publication, but this consideration is too banal.
Thank you again for your very interesting comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your answers.
The evolution of the text and how is presented to the reader, as you clearly mention, is indeed a challenge. Therefore, it deserves(in my opinion) at least a strategic view without addressing many technical details. A minimal classification of the publication updates(as mentioned in your answer: "clarify, supplement, or correct") could help a lot and the use of automatic tools(Ai or not ai based) will increase the readability of articles of and make more methodologically sound the alive publication concept.
Author Response
The evolution of the text and how is presented to the reader, as you clearly mention, is indeed a challenge. Therefore, it deserves(in my opinion) at least a strategic view without addressing many technical details. A minimal classification of the publication updates(as mentioned in your answer: "clarify, supplement, or correct") could help a lot and the use of automatic tools(Ai or not ai based) will increase the readability of articles of and make more methodologically sound the alive publication concept.
I agree with your remark. However, in terms of software support for alive publication, I would still put the updated date of the last revision in the bibliographic list in the first place. Readers respond to this date very energetically, the traffic of alive publication with a bibliographic reference designed in this way is noticeably growing. I have been reliably convinced of this by my own experience.
At the same time, you are right; the task of visually presenting an evolving text is certainly relevant. In particular, the reader has the right to subscribe to updates of the alive publication, and to such a reader, of course, we must show in each letter what exactly has changed in the text this time. Unfortunately, I don't have such an experience yet, and I just don't want to fantasize about this important topic speculatively.
Thank you for your helpful comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no further questions.
