Post-publication peer review

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(F1000 Research)
(illustration)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[Image:Post-publication peer review schematic.png|right|thumb|250px|'''Traditional pre-publication peer review'''. One of the main disadvantages lies in the time lost during the sometimes protracted peer review process. Also, the secrecy of the review process means that the valuable comments of the reviewers are invisible to the public.]]
 +
Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server [http://arxiv.org arXiv] but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.
Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server [http://arxiv.org arXiv] but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.

Revision as of 08:49, 29 October 2012

Traditional pre-publication peer review. One of the main disadvantages lies in the time lost during the sometimes protracted peer review process. Also, the secrecy of the review process means that the valuable comments of the reviewers are invisible to the public.
Traditional pre-publication peer review. One of the main disadvantages lies in the time lost during the sometimes protracted peer review process. Also, the secrecy of the review process means that the valuable comments of the reviewers are invisible to the public.

Almost all scientific articles are currently reviewed before publication. This leads to sometimes dramatic delays in the public access to the information and in rare, extreme cases to purposeful delay of publication by self-interested reviewers. Alternatives exist like the popular physics and mathematics pre-print server arXiv but have no widely used equivalent in the life sciences. Nevertheless, new initiatives are under way in our fields which we will try to document here. Feel free to edit this page with your comments and findings.

Post-review journals/platforms

Faculty of 1000 is currently (2012) testing a post-publication review platform, or a call it a journal if you prefer. F10000 Research will be an online publication service that publishes articles almost immediately, after a brief quality check by their editorial team. The review process follows and is fully documented alongside the versions of the research article.

See also

Personal tools