Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science

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; Daniel W. Hook; Phil Hurst; Sophien Kamoun; Robert Kiley; Michael M. Lacy; Marcel LaFlamme; Rebecca Lawrence; Thomas Lemberger; Maria Leptin; Elliott Lumb; Catriona J. MacCallum; Christopher Steven Marcum; Gabriele Marinello; Alex Mendonça; Sara Monaco; Kleber Neves; Damian Pattinson; Jessica K. Polka; Iratxe Puebla; Martyn Rittman; Stephen J. Royle; Daniela Saderi; Richard Sever; Kathleen Shearer; John E. Spiro; Bodo Stern; Dario Taraborelli; Ron Vale; Claudia G. Vasquez; Ludo Waltman; Fiona M. Watt; Zara Y. Weinberg; Mark Williams

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502

Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science

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 HindleDaniel W. Hook, Phil Hurst, Sophien Kamoun, Robert Kiley, Michael M. Lacy, Marcel LaFlamme, Rebecca Lawrence, Thomas Lemberger, Maria Leptin, Elliott Lumb, Catriona J. MacCallum, Christopher Steven Marcum, Gabriele Marinello, Alex Mendonça, Sara Monaco, Kleber Neves, Damian Pattinson, Jessica K. Polka, Iratxe Puebla, Martyn Rittman, Stephen J. Royle, Daniela Saderi, Richard Sever, Kathleen Shearer, John E. Spiro, Bodo Stern, Dario Taraborelli, Ron Vale, Claudia G. Vasquez, Ludo Waltman, Fiona M. Watt, Zara Y. Weinberg, Mark Williams

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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 preprints 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.

Original language	English
Article number	e3002502
Journal	PLoS Biology
Volume	22
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
Publication status	Published - 29 Feb 2024

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502Licence: Other

journal.pbio.3002502
This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Final published version, 676 KBLicence: Other

Cite this

Avissar-Whiting, M., Belliard, F., Bertozzi, S. M., Brand, A., Brown, K., Clément-Stoneham, G., Dawson, S., Dey, G., Ecer, D., Edmunds, S. C., Farley, A., Fischer, T. D., Franko, M., Fraser, J. S., Funk, K., Ganier, C., Harrison, M., Hatch, A., Hazlett, H., ... Williams, M. (2024). Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. PLoS Biology, 22(2), Article e3002502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502

@article{034dc4add6724e4ba7c0ab983770facb,

title = "Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science",

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 preprints 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.",

author = "Michele Avissar-Whiting and Fr{\'e}d{\'e}rique Belliard and Bertozzi, {Stefano M.} and Amy Brand and Katherine Brown and G{\'e}raldine Cl{\'e}ment-Stoneham and Stephanie Dawson and Gautam Dey and Daniel Ecer and Edmunds, {Scott C.} and Ashley Farley and Fischer, {Tara D.} and Maryrose Franko and Fraser, {James S.} and Kathryn Funk and Clarisse Ganier and Melissa Harrison and Anna Hatch and Haley Hazlett and Samantha Hindle and Hook, {Daniel W.} and Phil Hurst and Sophien Kamoun and Robert Kiley and Lacy, {Michael M.} and Marcel LaFlamme and Rebecca Lawrence and Thomas Lemberger and Maria Leptin and Elliott Lumb and MacCallum, {Catriona J.} and Marcum, {Christopher Steven} and Gabriele Marinello and Alex Mendon{\c c}a and Sara Monaco and Kleber Neves and Damian Pattinson and Polka, {Jessica K.} and Iratxe Puebla and Martyn Rittman and Royle, {Stephen J.} and Daniela Saderi and Richard Sever and Kathleen Shearer and Spiro, {John E.} and Bodo Stern and Dario Taraborelli and Ron Vale and Vasquez, {Claudia G.} and Ludo Waltman and Watt, {Fiona M.} and Weinberg, {Zara Y.} and Mark Williams",

note = "This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.",

year = "2024",

month = feb,

day = "29",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

journal = "PLoS Biology",

issn = "1544-9173",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "2",

}

Avissar-Whiting, M, Belliard, F, Bertozzi, SM, Brand, A, Brown, K, Clément-Stoneham, G, Dawson, S, Dey, G, Ecer, D, Edmunds, SC, Farley, A, Fischer, TD, Franko, M, Fraser, JS, Funk, K, Ganier, C, Harrison, M, Hatch, A, Hazlett, H, Hindle, S, Hook, DW, Hurst, P, Kamoun, S, Kiley, R, Lacy, MM, LaFlamme, M, Lawrence, R, Lemberger, T, Leptin, M, Lumb, E, MacCallum, CJ, Marcum, CS, Marinello, G, Mendonça, A, Monaco, S, Neves, K, Pattinson, D, Polka, JK, Puebla, I, Rittman, M, Royle, SJ, Saderi, D, Sever, R, Shearer, K, Spiro, JE, Stern, B, Taraborelli, D, Vale, R, Vasquez, CG, Waltman, L, Watt, FM, Weinberg, ZY & Williams, M 2024, 'Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science', PLoS Biology, vol. 22, no. 2, e3002502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science

AU - Avissar-Whiting, Michele

AU - Belliard, Frédérique

AU - Bertozzi, Stefano M.

AU - Brand, Amy

AU - Brown, Katherine

AU - Clément-Stoneham, Géraldine

AU - Dawson, Stephanie

AU - Dey, Gautam

AU - Ecer, Daniel

AU - Edmunds, Scott C.

AU - Farley, Ashley

AU - Fischer, Tara D.

AU - Franko, Maryrose

AU - Fraser, James S.

AU - Funk, Kathryn

AU - Ganier, Clarisse

AU - Harrison, Melissa

AU - Hatch, Anna

AU - Hazlett, Haley

AU - Hindle, Samantha

AU - Hook, Daniel W.

AU - Hurst, Phil

AU - Kamoun, Sophien

AU - Kiley, Robert

AU - Lacy, Michael M.

AU - LaFlamme, Marcel

AU - Lawrence, Rebecca

AU - Lemberger, Thomas

AU - Leptin, Maria

AU - Lumb, Elliott

AU - MacCallum, Catriona J.

AU - Marcum, Christopher Steven

AU - Marinello, Gabriele

AU - Mendonça, Alex

AU - Monaco, Sara

AU - Neves, Kleber

AU - Pattinson, Damian

AU - Polka, Jessica K.

AU - Puebla, Iratxe

AU - Rittman, Martyn

AU - Royle, Stephen J.

AU - Saderi, Daniela

AU - Sever, Richard

AU - Shearer, Kathleen

AU - Spiro, John E.

AU - Stern, Bodo

AU - Taraborelli, Dario

AU - Vale, Ron

AU - Vasquez, Claudia G.

AU - Waltman, Ludo

AU - Watt, Fiona M.

AU - Weinberg, Zara Y.

AU - Williams, Mark

N1 - This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

PY - 2024/2/29

Y1 - 2024/2/29

N2 - 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 preprints 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.

AB - 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 preprints 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85186303141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502

DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502

M3 - Article

C2 - 38421949

AN - SCOPUS:85186303141

SN - 1544-9173

VL - 22

JO - PLoS Biology

JF - PLoS Biology

IS - 2

M1 - e3002502

ER -

Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this