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

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

Crossref Citation Links - April 2018

<div><div>An effort by eLife Sciences to make citation data more accessible.</div><div>http://elifesciences.org/</div></div><div><br></div><div>The citation links are an extract of the Crossref bulk dump (April 2018) that is available here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6170414</div><div><br></div><div>The source code that produced the file can be found here:</div><div>https://github.com/elifesciences/datacapsule-crossref</div

Crossref Citation Links - January 2018

<div><div>An effort by eLife Sciences to make citation data more accessible.</div><div>http://elifesciences.org/</div></div><div><br></div><div>The citation links are an extract of the Crossref bulk dump (January 2018) that is available here: https://figshare.com/account/articles/5845554</div><div><br></div><div>The source code that produced the file can be found here:</div><div>https://github.com/elifesciences/datacapsule-crossref</div

Crossref Works Dump - April 2018

<div><div>An effort by eLife Sciences to make citation data more accessible.</div><div>http://elifesciences.org/</div></div><div><br></div><div>This dump provides the raw Crossref works JSON responses as a bulk dump, downloaded in April 2018.</div><div><br></div><div>It was created by retrieving the works from Crossref API http://api.crossref.org/works (using a 1000 rows per page and a cursor).</div><div><br></div><div>The source code that produced the file can be found here:</div><div>https://github.com/elifesciences/datacapsule-crossref</div><div><br></div><div>The output is a 32 GB zip file (using LZMA encryption) contains all of the Crossref raw response. In this case some manuscripts received updates during the download process and therefore will appear twice.</div><div><br></div><div>To uncompress the file you will need a tool that can handle LZMA (Python 3's zipfile can for example, so can 7zip).</div><div><br></div><div>The aforementioned project (datacapsule-crossref) also includes code that extracts information from JSON responses included in the zip.</div

Preprint reviews per month

&lt;p&gt;Growth of preprint review over time. Preprints reviewed per month on Sciety as of 2023-10-30, excluding reviews conducted by automated tools (ScreenIT) and reviews by journals posted after publication of the journal version. The original Google Sheets file may be viewed here:&nbsp;https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rjH2weFpeXjY5cGAU3s7wDzjKPuAkf_opjpcEo-_4wg/edit?usp=sharing&lt;/p&gt

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

AUPeer: Plea reviewsecoisnfianrmthimportant atallheadi part nglof evethelsarere scientific presenteprocess, dcorrectbut ly: 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.Scholarly Communications and Publishin

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

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

Advancing the culture of peer review with preprints

Preprints enable new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial. In December 2022, 80 researchers and representatives of funders, institutions, preprint servers, journals, indexers, and review services were invited to gather online and at the Janelia Research Campus for a workshop on Recognizing Preprint Peer Review. Sponsored by HHMI, ASAPbio, and EMBO, this meeting aimed to catalyze community consensus and support for preprint peer review and to create model funder, institutional, and journal policies that recognize both preprints with reviews, and reviews of preprints. Here, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to help capture the growing momentum of preprint sharing and empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints

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

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

Estimating the growth of preprint review over time.

Preprints evaluated per month on Sciety, excluding reviews conducted by automated tools (ScreenIT) and reviews by journals posted after publication of the journal version (source data available [20]). This chart includes data from the following services, regardless of which server the preprints they evaluate have been posted to: eLife, Review Commons, Arcadia Science, preLights, Rapid Reviews, PREreview, NCRC, Peer Community In (Evolutionary Biology, Ecology, Zoology, Animal Science, Neuroscience, Paleontology, Archaeology), PeerRef, Biophysics Colab, ASAPbio (and ASAPbio-SciELO) crowd review, Life Science Editors (including Foundation), and The Unjournal. Data have been collected and provided by Sciety. Reviews posted to comment sections of preprint servers are not included, and depending on the policies of individual services, some of the evaluations included in this chart may not meet our definition of preprint review.</p