{"id":3397,"date":"2020-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-11-02T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pl-asapbio.local\/putting-peers-at-the-heart-of-peer-review\/"},"modified":"2025-03-28T21:36:53","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T21:36:53","slug":"putting-peers-at-the-heart-of-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/putting-peers-at-the-heart-of-peer-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Putting peers at the heart of peer review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Organizer<\/h2>\n

Life Science Editors (Helen Pickersgill, Angela Andersen, Marie Bao, Carol Featherstone, Shawna Hiley, Sabbi Lall, Li-Kuo Su)<\/p>\n

Website or social media links<\/h4>\n

www.lifescienceeditors.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Current stage of development<\/h4>\n

 Idea<\/p>\n

Project duration<\/h4>\n

Indefinitely<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Update<\/h2>\n

How has your project changed? <\/h4>\n

We introduced an additional option<\/span> to incentivize authors to initiate peer review. As an alternative to requesting traditional formal evaluation of their preprint that could potentially be used by a journal, authors can request informal guidance<\/span> on how to further develop and improve the impact of their study before journal submission, to support a key reason that authors post preprints. We expect that this opportunity will encourage both preprint deposition and peer review as it provides a novel service<\/span> not formally available elsewhere. <\/p>\n

We all know that low quality peer review has damaging consequences on science and scientists. High quality peer review requires a panel of experts with relevant experience covering both technical and conceptual aspects of the paper, as well as oversight to ensure thoroughness and professionalism of each review. For submissions to journals, an editor selects appropriate reviewers and oversees the quality of the reviews. Our proposal creates this valuable peer review process for preprints by having an author-selected Liaison Team assume these responsibilities. To ensure accountability and high quality, the Liaison Team is named, and we added that they meet key criteria<\/span> (see below). Ultimately, ensuring high quality peer review<\/span> will effectively curate preprints by segregating strong preprints from those that do not garner sufficient interest for review. Instead of providing an overall rating of the preprint, the Liaison Team will write a non- quantitative Impact Summary , given that a single rating cannot capture all aspects. The time taken to complete reviews will be monitored to ensure a timely process and identify reliable reviewers .<\/p>\n

Instead of providing an overall rating of the preprint, the Liaison Team will write a non- quantitative Impact Summary<\/span>, given that a single rating cannot capture all aspects. <\/p>\n

The time taken to complete reviews will be monitored to ensure a timely process and identify reliable reviewers<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Have you integrated any feedback received?<\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. To prevent gaming of the system<\/span> we will specify criteria to avoid real and perceived conflicts of interest in the selection of Liaison Teams by authors, as is standard at scientific journals. In addition:\n