The evaluation of scholarly journal articles is commonly carried out by two or three anonymous experts selected by a journal’s editor. Whilst this process provides valuable expert assessment, it does mean that the evaluation of the scientific integrity and novelty of research is limited to a small number of experts. In contrast, community peer review is a model that seeks to open the reviewing process to the broader scholarly community.
In this article, we’ll explain what community peer review is, how preprints make it possible, the key platforms that enable community peer review, and evidence of community peer review in action.
What is community peer review?
Community peer review is an open and collaborative method of evaluating research carried out by a broader pool of researchers who can read, publicly comment, critique, and in some cases formally endorse research, often before formal journal submission. This model increases transparency, speed and scope of feedback, and democratic participation in the evaluation of science.
Instead of research being assessed in a closed manner by a small number of experts, volunteer members of a scholarly field or population publicly review work. Depending on the type of community review platform they use, these volunteers can also gain access to training and mentorship models to further support their development as reviewers. This is extremely important, especially given that most researchers do not receive formal training in peer review, despite the widely accepted importance of the model in validating scientific information.
How preprints make this possible
When preprints are posted to online servers such as Preprints.org, they are made freely and immediately accessible. Through the open access licensing agreements supported and used by these preprint servers, any researcher in the world can read this research. But that’s not all. These researchers can also respond by leaving feedback, helping shape future iterations of research manuscripts.
Such a model creates a continuous, transparent feedback loop that traditional subscription-based and open access journals cannot replicate.
Key platforms enabling community peer review
To facilitate the community peer review model, there are different types of platforms offering different types of community peer review. Here are some of the key platforms available to researchers.
PREreview
PREreview is a free, open-source review platform where researchers at all career stages can leave structured open reviews. Their vision is to build a transparent, trusting scholarly ecosystem where knowledge flows freely and scholarly review does not function as a gatekeeping mechanism that risks upholding biased publishing hierarchies.
Rather than offering formal validation of the research, researchers using PREreview mainly help facilitate scholarly discussion around specific preprints.
Preprints.org has seamlessly integrated PREreview’s community-driven review portal into the platform, enabling researchers to request and receive expert feedback efficiently.
Peer Community In
Peer Community In offers subject-specific platforms enabling scholarly volunteer communities with knowledge in the relevant fields to formally review preprints.
Upon positive evaluation, preprints are then publicly validated and recommended, making them complete, citable, and trustworthy.
Review Commons
Review Commons is a journal-independent peer review platform in the life sciences where authors can submit a preprint before choosing a journal to publish in.
Reviewers evaluate the science, with the platform creating a package containing the peer-reviewed preprints, review reports, and author responses.
COVID-19 pandemic as proof of concept
Preprints and COVID-19 have a shared history that allows us to see just what researchers and the public value most when it comes to scientific progress.
The COVID-19 pandemic emphasised the need for the fast validation and publication of beneficial scientific information. During this period, there was a significant rise in the posting of preprints. This is because the preprint posting model allowed researchers around the world to exchange valuable data and findings at a much quicker pace than that allowed by traditional journal article publishing. It was this kind of publishing environment that would ultimately go on to inform policy surrounding public health guidelines. Subsequently, the spread of the virus could be better controlled amongst international populations.
Equally as important as speed during this time was the integrity of the research being posted, which is where community peer review helped.
Commentary on and scrutiny of COVID-19 preprints ensured that flaws in research were quickly addressed thanks to community commenting features. Several organised communities, such as Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview and the Sinai Immunology Review Project, dedicated themselves to reviewing preprints related to COVID-19 and outbreaks, preserving the integrity of the research ecosystem at a time when factual and novel scientific information was needed most.
Community peer review: supporting, not replacing, formal review
Many may question the rigorousness or integrity of community peer review. Some might view it as an inferior alternative to traditional peer review. However, important to explicitly state that community peer review does not replace formal peer review; it complements and strengthens it.
Community peer review expands who gets to evaluate science, diversifying the reviewer pool and reducing long-term strain on overburdened journal reviewers. It further highlights the importance of reviewer training, helping to make formal mentorship programs more established within the scientific community. Most importantly of all, however, is how community peer review makes the quality assurance process more transparent and accountable.
Community peer review works best when volunteers engage constructively and in good faith. Commenters have a responsibility and should consult platform revieing guidelines where appropriate.
For more information, see our articles on the pros and cons of open peer review and preprints vs. peer-reviewed articles.
