Blog Category: Peer review

By Victoria Yan Dozens of projects organizing peer review of preprints are active or being developed. In this landscape full of new possibilities, differentiating among innovative forms of preprint review is challenging.

In response to the pressure within academic publishing, especially peer review, driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of publishing organisations called on the research community to work together (“COVID-19 Publishers’ Open Letter of Intent �... The community responded quickly, with 2,179 researchers signed up to a volunteer rapid reviewer pool.

Review Commons is announcing two new policies today: As of August 1, 2021, Review Commons will require all authors to post their manuscript as a preprint, prior to transfer to an affiliate journal1. In return, all the affiliate journals provide authors with scooping protection from the date of posting of the preprint.

On December 4, 2020, ASAPbio hosted #PreprintSprint presentations, where 16 projects (down from the 21 presented at the kickoff, partially due to mergers and collaborations) updated approximately 100 attendees on what they had accomplished during the... In terms of individual preprints, a history of evaluation is not visible to readers.

Community feedback on preprints makes rapid science more robust. Review and commentary can help authors improve their articles; curation can provide readers with helpful context and enhance discoverability.

In late 2019, EMBO and ASAPbio launched Review Commons, a platform for journal-independent peer review that facilitates the posting of a refereed preprint and submission to 17 partner journals. With this system, we aimed to improve peer review in three ways: Review Commons is an experiment, and as such, we’re committed to measuring and evaluating the outcomes of the project.