In a nutshell

The Crowdpeer platform facilitates the open peer review of preprints. We provide a universal structure for reviews, separating the objective, quality related critiques of a paper from it’s perceived impact. Anyone can add a paper summary, highlight strengths and weaknesses of a paper and reply to others’ contributions. This encourages all aspects of traditional peer review to be covered - not only negative comments. A comment voting system allows for members of the community to collectively filter reviewer contributions, highlighting the most important comments and providing a more impartial final review. Through this system, reviewers who make valued contributions are also able to build their reputations within the community.

Goals and intentions
  • To provide a platform for the open review of preprints and engagement of a diverse group of reviewers.
  • To employ a universal structure for reviews in order to standardise the review process, make reviews more impartial & provide an educational tool for reviewers.
  • To encourage engagement between reviewers using an up-voting system; allowing the community to learn from each other, removing bias and ensuring the most informative comments are heard.
  • To provide recognition for reviewers’ contributions - allowing them to build their reputations within the community and benefit professionally.
Project status
Types of outputs
Review process
  • Review requested by
  • Reviewer selected by
  • Public interaction
  • Author response
  • Decision
    Other scale or rating
Review policy
  • Review coverage
    Complete paper
  • Reviewer identity known to
  • Competing interests
    Not included
Social Networks
Review features
  • Manuscript hosting
  • Notes
    • Reviewer performance metrics
  • Eligible reviewers/editors
    Anyone (reviews are open)
  • Tags or badges
  • Metrics
    Yes - we track the number of reviews and quality (through upvoting) of reviews on a paper.
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment