TY - JOUR
KW - Careers
KW - Community ecology
KW - Medical journals
KW - Metadata
KW - Momentum
KW - peer review
KW - Scientific publishing
KW - Zoology
AU - Michele Avissar-Whiting
AU - Frédérique Belliard
AU - Stefano M. Bertozzi
AU - Amy Brand
AU - Katherine Brown
AU - Géraldine Clément-Stoneham
AU - Stephanie Dawson
AU - Gautam Dey
AU - Daniel Ecer
AU - Scott C. Edmunds
AU - Ashley Farley
AU - Tara D. Fischer
AU - Maryrose Franko
AU - James S. Fraser
AU - Kathryn Funk
AU - Clarisse Ganier
AU - Melissa Harrison
AU - Anna Hatch
AU - Haley Hazlett
AU - Samantha Hindle
AU - Daniel W. Hook
AU - Phil Hurst
AU - Sophien Kamoun
AU - Robert Kiley
AU - Michael M. Lacy
AU - Marcel LaFlamme
AU - Rebecca Lawrence
AU - Thomas Lemberger
AU - Maria Leptin
AU - Elliott Lumb
AU - Catriona J. MacCallum
AU - Christopher Steven Marcum
AU - Gabriele Marinello
AU - Alex Mendonça
AU - Sara Monaco
AU - Kleber Neves
AU - Damian Pattinson
AU - Jessica K. Polka
AU - Iratxe Puebla
AU - Martyn Rittman
AU - Stephen J. Royle
AU - Daniela Saderi
AU - Richard Sever
AU - Kathleen Shearer
AU - John E. Spiro
AU - Bodo Stern
AU - Dario Taraborelli
AU - Ron Vale
AU - Claudia G. Vasquez
AU - Ludo Waltman
AU - Fiona M. Watt
AU - Zara Y. Weinberg
AU - Mark Williams
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.
BT - PLOS Biology
DA - Feb 29, 2024
DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
IS - 2
LA - en
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.
PY - 0
EP - e3002502
T2 - PLOS Biology
TI - Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science
UR - https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
VL - 22
Y2 - 2024-03-04
SN - 1545-7885
ER -