In a nutshell

How it works: Free for scientists, journals pay.

1) Author submits manuscript, chooses Anonymous or Onymous mode, chooses process deadlines.

2) Manuscript becomes available for any validated community member to engage as reviewer, or recommend others as reviewers. Reviewer Essays must have sections Merit, Critique and Discussion, max 1000 words, may include list of references.

3) Reviewers must judge, score and give feedback to each other’s Essays, for accuracy and fairness in each three sections. Scores build reviewer’s performance metric, which can be shown publicly in reviewer’s profile.

4) Author uploads revised version.

5) Reviewers give final assessment on whether revision addresses valid critique, and if it is Publishable, Revisable, or Unpublishable.

6) Editors of multiple (currently 70) journals can access any peer reviews and can click to authors a direct, private offer to publish, or invitation to submit. Authors can also click journal logo to initiate correspondence.

Goals and intentions

Once upon a time in a land probably far, far away from where you are now, a postdoc was (as they often are) sadly noticing another year commencing on the peer review process of his manuscript. It was his own fault of course: it had been his own darn choice to start the descent down the journal prestige ladder from the top, where the steps are most slippery.

Yet, it was dawning on the young scientist that this was also his illusions about scientific peer review meeting reality. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to the words of Richard Horton:

"We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Let’s change that.

Project status
Review process
  • Review requested by
    Authors
  • Reviewer selected by
    Self-nominated
  • Public interaction
    Not included
  • Opportunity for author response
    Included
  • Recommendation
    Binary decision
Review policy
  • Review coverage
    Complete paper
  • Reviewer identity known to
    Editor or service
  • Competing interests
    Checked
Social Networks
Video
Review features
  • Manuscript hosting
    Yes
  • Notes

    https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/overview/

     

    https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/process-flow/

     

     

  • Review of code or data
    Yes
  • Eligible reviewers/editors
    Reviewers: external verification that there exists at least one article where the person is the first or corresponding author, published in a PubMed- or ISI -indexed journal. Once verified, person gets Peer status, and thereafter can access and engage any manuscript, except those submitted by authors affiliated with Peer via institution or co-authorship with last 3 years. Editors: appointed by participating journals.
  • Criteria for inclusion

    Peerage of Science itself does not publish or publicly display the outcomes, but facilitates the selection processes of participating publishers. Access to manuscripts and peer reviews is strictly limited to validated Peers and editors.

    Submissions are pre-screened before posting to the community, and articles judged pseudoscience are rejected.

    Peerage of Science itself does not appoint or solicit reviewers, nor does it limit the number of reviewers. Some manuscripts fail to get reviews at all (ca 26% of submissions), most get at least one, while some have received eight full Essays.

Results
  • Number of scholarly outputs commented on
    1,000-10,000
mood_bad
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment