Wikimedia Commons

File:Estimating the growth of preprint review over time – Preprints evaluated per month on Sciety and reviews by several journals after publication.png

Original file ‎(2,032 × 1,392 pixels, file size: 324 KB, MIME type: image/png)

Captions

Captions

Adoption of preprint review; From the study "Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science"

Summary

edit
Description
English: "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.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502.g001"

"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."
Date
Source https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
Author

Authors of the study: 

   Michele Avissar-Whiting,
   Frédérique Belliard,
   Stefano M. Bertozzi,
   Amy Brand,
   Katherine Brown,
   Géraldine Clément-Stoneham,
   Stephanie Dawson,
   Gautam Dey,
   Daniel Ecer,
   Scott C. Edmunds,
   Ashley Farley,
   Tara D. Fischer,
   Maryrose Franko,
   James S. Fraser,
   Kathryn Funk,
   Clarisse Ganier,
   Melissa Harrison,
   Anna Hatch,
   Haley Hazlett,
   Samantha Hindle,
   Daniel W. Hook,
   Phil Hurst,
   Sophien Kamoun,
   Robert Kiley,
   Michael M. Lacy,
   Marcel LaFlamme,
   Rebecca Lawrence,
   Thomas Lemberger,
   Maria Leptin,
   Elliott Lumb,
   Catriona J. MacCallum,
   Christopher Steven Marcum,
   Gabriele Marinello,
   Alex Mendonça,
   Sara Monaco,
   Kleber Neves,
   Damian Pattinson,
   Jessica K. Polka ,
   Iratxe Puebla,
   Martyn Rittman,
   Stephen J. Royle,
   Daniela Saderi,
   Richard Sever,
   Kathleen Shearer,
   John E. Spiro,
   Bodo Stern,
   Dario Taraborelli,
   Ron Vale,
   Claudia G. Vasquez,
   Ludo Waltman,
   Fiona M. Watt,
   Zara Y. Weinberg,
Mark Williams

Licensing

edit
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current12:35, 2 June 2024Thumbnail for version as of 12:35, 2 June 20242,032 × 1,392 (324 KB)Prototyperspective (talk | contribs)Uploaded a work by Authors of the study: Michele Avissar-Whiting, Frédérique Belliard, Stefano M. Bertozzi, Amy Brand, Katherine Brown, Géraldine Clément-Stoneham, Stephanie Dawson, Gautam Dey, Daniel Ecer, Scott C. Edmunds, Ashley Farley, Tara D. Fischer, Maryrose Franko, James S. Fraser, Kathryn Funk, Clarisse Ganier, Melissa Harrison, Anna Hatch, Haley Hazlett, Samantha Hindle, Daniel W. Hook, Phil Hu...

You cannot overwrite this file.

There are no pages that use this file.

File usage on other wikis

The following other wikis use this file:

Metadata

This file contains additional information such as Exif metadata which may have been added by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Estimating_the_growth_of_preprint_review_over_time_–_Preprints_evaluated_per_month_on_Sciety_and_reviews_by_several_journals_after_publication.png&oldid=881019308"