03132nas a2200877   4500000000100000000000100001008003900002260001700041653001200058653002200070653002100092653001300113653001300126653001600139653002600155653001200181100002800193700002600221700002400247700001400271700002000285700003300305700002100338700001500359700001600374700002100390700001800411700002000429700002000449700002000469700001700489700002000506700002100526700001500547700001800562700002000580700001900600700001500619700001900634700001700653700002000670700002000690700002100710700002100731700001700752700001700769700002600786700003000812700002300842700001900865700001600884700001700900700002100917700002100938700001800959700001900977700002100996700001901017700001801036700002101054700001801075700001501093700002201108700001301130700002301143700001701166700001801183700002101201700001801222245009701240856008201337300001301419490000701432520080101439022001402240       0                             d  cFeb 29, 202410aCareers10aCommunity ecology10aMedical journals10aMetadata10aMomentum10apeer review10aScientific publishing10aZoology1 aMichele Avissar-Whiting1 aFrédérique Belliard1 aStefano M. Bertozzi1 aAmy Brand1 aKatherine Brown1 aGéraldine Clément-Stoneham1 aStephanie Dawson1 aGautam Dey1 aDaniel Ecer1 aScott C. Edmunds1 aAshley Farley1 aTara D. Fischer1 aMaryrose Franko1 aJames S. Fraser1 aKathryn Funk1 aClarisse Ganier1 aMelissa Harrison1 aAnna Hatch1 aHaley Hazlett1 aSamantha Hindle1 aDaniel W. Hook1 aPhil Hurst1 aSophien Kamoun1 aRobert Kiley1 aMichael M. Lacy1 aMarcel LaFlamme1 aRebecca Lawrence1 aThomas Lemberger1 aMaria Leptin1 aElliott Lumb1 aCatriona J. MacCallum1 aChristopher Steven Marcum1 aGabriele Marinello1 aAlex Mendonça1 aSara Monaco1 aKleber Neves1 aDamian Pattinson1 aJessica K. Polka1 aIratxe Puebla1 aMartyn Rittman1 aStephen J. Royle1 aDaniela Saderi1 aRichard Sever1 aKathleen Shearer1 aJohn E. Spiro1 aBodo Stern1 aDario Taraborelli1 aRon Vale1 aClaudia G. Vasquez1 aLudo Waltman1 aFiona M. Watt1 aZara Y. Weinberg1 aMark Williams00aRecommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science  uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502  ae30025020 v223 aPeer 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.  a1545-7885