TY - JOUR
T1 - Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science
AU - Avissar-Whiting, Michele
AU - Belliard, Frédérique
AU - Bertozzi, Stefano M.
AU - Brand, Amy
AU - Brown, Katherine
AU - Clément-Stoneham, Géraldine
AU - et al.
AU - Dawson, Stephanie
AU - Dey, Gautam
AU - Ecer, Daniel
AU - Edmunds, Scott C.
AU - Farley, Ashley
AU - Fischer, Tara D.
AU - Franko, Maryrose
AU - Fraser, James S.
AU - Funk, Kathryn
AU - Ganier, Clarisse
AU - Harrison, Melissa
AU - Hatch, Anna
AU - Hazlett, Haley
AU - Hindle, Samantha
AU - Hook, Daniel W.
AU - Hurst, Phil
AU - Kamoun, Sophien
AU - Kiley, Robert
AU - Lacy, Michael M.
AU - LaFlamme, Marcel
AU - Lawrence, Rebecca
AU - Lemberger, Thomas
AU - Leptin, Maria
AU - Lumb, Elliott
AU - MacCallum, Catriona J.
AU - Marcum, Christopher Steven
AU - Marinello, Gabriele
AU - Mendonça, Alex
AU - Monaco, Sara
AU - Neves, Kleber
AU - Pattinson, Damian
AU - Polka, Jessica K.
AU - Puebla, Iratxe
AU - Rittman, Martyn
AU - Royle, Stephen J.
AU - Saderi, Daniela
AU - Sever, Richard
AU - Shearer, Kathleen
AU - Spiro, John E.
AU - Stern, Bodo
AU - Taraborelli, Dario
AU - Vale, Ron
AU - Vasquez, Claudia G.
AU - Williams, Mark
PY - 2024/2
Y1 - 2024/2
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.
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.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
M3 - Article
C2 - 38421949
AN - SCOPUS:85186303141
SN - 1544-9173
VL - 22
JO - PLoS biology
JF - PLoS biology
IS - 2
M1 - e3002502
ER -