Michele Avissar-Whiting, Frédérique Belliard, Stefano M. Bertozzi, Amy Brand, Katherine Brown, Géraldine Clément-Stoneham, Stephanie Dawson, Gautam Dey, Daniel Ecer , Scott C. Edmunds, Ashley Farley, Tara D. Fischer, Maryrose Franko, James S. Fraser, Kathryn Funk, Clarisse Ganier, Melissa Harrison Anna Hatch, Haley Hazlett Samantha Hindle, Robert Kiley, Daniel W. Hook, Phil Hurst, Sophien Kamoun, Michael M. Lacy, Marcel LaFiamme, Rebecca Lawrence, Thomas Lemberger, Maria Leptin, Elliott Lumb, Catriona J. Maccallum, Christopher Steven Marcum, Gabriele Marinello, Alex Mendonca, Sara Monaco, Kleber Neves, Damian Pattinson, Jessica K. Polka, Irate Puebla, Martyn Rittman, Stephen J. Royle , Daniela Saderi, Richard Severit, Kathleen Shearer, John E. Spiro, Bodo Stern, Dario Taraborelli, Ron Vale Claudia, Claudia G. Vasquez, Ludo Waltman, Fiona M. Watt, Zara Y. Weinberg, Mark Williams
Source
PLOS Biology 22(2) February 29, 2024
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
Abstract
Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but traditional peer review at journals is coming under increased scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of transparency. As pre-prints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. Preprints are enabling new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial than traditional journal peer review, and to thus fundamentally shift the culture of peer review toward constructive collaboration. In this Consensus View, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provide recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints.
Estimating the growth of preprint review over time Source: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
