Peer Feedback

Journal-agnostic peer review service that produces an “Evaluated Preprint”

In a nutshell

Note that this project has evolved into Review Commons.

We propose the creation of a scientist-driven, journal-agnostic peer review service that facilitates subsequent publication in a journal after creation of an "Evaluated Preprint." Review would be conducted by members of an extensive review board and be coordinated by professional editors. We anticipate that the majority of papers that pass through Peer Feedback will not need to be reviewed again, or could be reviewed only for journal suitability. We also hope that the system will promote better journal matching with less rejection since editors will have better information on the submission.

Goals and intentions

By conducing peer review before journal submission, Peer Feedback aims to make review more constructive by focusing attention on the science in a manuscript, not its suitability for a given journal. It also aims to reduce repeated peer reviewing that can occur during serial journal submission.

Types of outputs

Preprints

Review process

Review requested by

Authors
Reviewer selected by

Editor, service, or community
Public interaction

No
Author response

Yes
Decision

None

Review policy

Review coverage

Complete paper
Reviewer identity known to

Editor or service
Competing interests

Checked

Gallery

Review features

Manuscript hosting

No
Criteria for inclusion

Upon receipt, submissions are subjected to an initial screening process that checks for adherence to relevant publishing guidelines such as plagiarism. However, the existence of an Evaluated Preprint by itself does not imply quality; readers would have to evaluate the reviews themselves.

Transparency

Open reports

No comments yet.