IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3002502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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

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.As preprints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. This Consensus View issues a call to action to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provides recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints.

Suggested Citation

  • 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 F, 2024. "Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(2), pages 1-13, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3002502
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3002502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.