I appreciated the fact that so many scholars weighed in on this thread about ScholarSift, some positively and some with concerns. Quite a few of the concerns are actually things we're trying to *make better* with technology. But we acknowledge we've only put a limited amount 1/ https://twitter.com/HBWHBWHBW/status/1380246379516268545

of information on the website, and that it's just not enough for something that is so important to our community. We are working to put together more comprehensive public materials, and we're pretty confident that most people will think we're making an improvement to the 2/

way things work now, both for authors and for editors. Just in response to a few of the concerns, we don't deem articles "preempted," we help editors find closely related literature that wasn't cited. We also don't replace scholarly judgment or deep domain knowledge, we 3/

provide a tool that makes it more efficient. I'm grateful for all those who've seen our vision (SO many librarians!), and we're looking forward to persuading skeptics! We are thinking carefully about all the comments, and they will guide us as we build this new platform. /end