|Platform name||Purpose or short description (any distinguishing features?)||Disciplinary scope||Type of manuscript commented on (preprint, paper, unposted manuscript?)||Preprints/manuscripts hosted at the venue?||Scope/format of comments (formal review, unstructured, specific rubric, etc)||Comments public?||Active dates||Current # of comments||Who owns the project or venue?||Cost?||How are reviews indexed or linked? Do they get DOIs, and if so what kind (Datacite, Crossref (using the review content type))?||Who initiates or requests the service?||Who does the commenting?||Who assigns or manages commenting?||Are the comments themselves rated/evaluated?||Link to review or community guidelines?||Allow anonymous commenting?||Does the venue provide a badge or shorthand signifier of quality for the article being commented on?||Are articles considered "published" (in biomedicine, indexed in PubMed) after this commentary/review?||Contacts of this platform, public email and twitter||Standalone experiment/tool or Organization that runs this specific experiment|
|Preprint jounal clubs (tab 2 of this sheet)||PubPeer||The "online journal club" that enables commenting on preprints and published journal papers||All fields||Anything with recognized ID (DOI or arXiv ID)||No||All types of comments containing "Facts, logic and publicly verifiable information."||Yes||2012-||>70k articles with comments||The PubPeer Foundation, a nonprofit (details: https://pubpeer.com/static/about)||0||DOI, PubMed ID, arXiv ID||Commenters||No account necessary. Anyone can comment anonymously. Names on signed comments are verifified via suitable publications but anyone can request an account: https://pubpeer.com/static/faq#28||PubPeer reserves the right to remove comments that do not adhere to guidelines||PubPeer moderates comments that do not abide by their guidelines. Comments must be factual and based on publicly verifiable information: https://pubpeer.com/static/faq#4||https://pubpeer.com/static/faq#1||yes||No||Noemail@example.com, @PubPeer||Platform|
|Individuals willing to review preprints (and review suggestions)||preLights||The preprint highlights service run by the biological community and supported by The Company of Biologists. Our team of 80+ early career 'preLighters' select, highlight and comment on preprints they feel are of particular interest to the biological community. You’ll find a summary of each preprint, the reasons it was selected and the selector’s thoughts on its significance. Preprint authors are also encouraged to provide responses to specific issues raised in the highlight, and public readers can join the discussion in the comments section.||Biology||preprint||No||Structure is chosen by the preLighter||Yes||20/02/18-||Highlight posts = 30; Author comments = 5; Public comments = 1||The Company of Biologists||0||No DOI. Will be logged by altmetrics||preLighters pick their preprint||Authors of the preprint are approached, public commenting is encouraged||Author comments are uploaded by the preLighter. Public comments are moderated post-'publication' by someone in the preLights team||Open to public comment||N/A||Yes||No||Nofirstname.lastname@example.org||Experiment|
|PREreview||On PREreview you can collaboratively write reviews of preprints following discussion at Preprint Journal Clubs (JC). PREreviews can be assigned to a doi, if the reviewers want to. The website also hosts resources to help you start a preprint journal club and write your PREreview. We invite community members to contribute to writing these resources.||All fields||preprint||No||We have guidelines to help researchers write a PREreview. The formats we recommend are either a formal peer review – particularly useful if preprint JC is used to learn collaboratively how to write a scientific peer review – or a less formal question and answer comment sheet that can be filled during the discussion by JC participants.||Yes||9/2017-present||52 public comments||Sam Hindle and Daniela Saderi are the co-founders, Monica Granados. Our work is volunteer and the platform is free.||Free||PREreviews get DOIs.||Ideally preprint authors, but this is not implemented yet, currently initiated by reviewers.||Researchers at any career levels. Primarily ECRs so far, as results from journal club discussions.||No||Contributors' guidelines||Reviewers need to sign up on PREreview to write PREreviews. Authentication is done manually by PREreview staff. Anonymous commenting is not encouraged. Hopefully soon we will implement ORCiD iD authentication to facilitate contributors' recognition.||No||Noemail@example.com||Platform|
|APPRAISE||Appraise aims to recruit scientists for post-publication peer review, to generate a tool and a format for validating value of published work. To implement a dynamic interactive platform for both consensus and contrasting views. Further to create a badge system for reviewed works. http://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise Currently, no clickable link found on webpage.||-||Published manuscript||No||Community review||Yes||-||-||Michael Eisen||-||-||-||Community of reviewers||-||-||-||Reviewers are encouraged to be identified||Yes, proposed use of badge for reviewed status||Yes||-|
|Peer Community In...||in each PCI X, a large number of recommenders playing the role of editors who recommend unpublished preprints based on peer-reviews to make them complete, reliable and citable articles, instead of or before submitting in ‘traditional’ journals. As much PCI X as possible in various disciplines.||3 PCI to date: evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology||preprint (and postprint for the start)||No||recommendation text + at least 2 formal, unstructured reviews||Yes||1/1/2017-||60 (34 preprints+26 posprints)||the PCI organization||Free for all||recommendations have DOI, reviews are in suppl. mat. of recommendations||authors submit their preprint||recommenders of each PCI + invited reviewers||recommenders do + check by a managing board||No||yes, https://evolbiol.peercommunityin.org/about/help_generic#For%20reviewers||recommendations are signed, reviews are signed or anonymous||Yes (recommendations)||Indexed in Europe PMC |
|Preprint.Space (formerly Academic Karma)||Designed primarily for academics who have been invited to review a preprint for a journal. The reviewer can post the review to Academic Karma, and also have it immediately forwarded to author. The author is invited to post a response. Peer reviews can be sent privately, allowing authors opportunity to reply before comments + reply are made open.||General||preprint||No||significance + comments||public or private||2014 onwards||267 (197 papers) . 218 excluding reviews sourced via biorxiv||jointly owned by founders, originally developed using small Queensland govt grant||0||investigating depositing via crossref||reviewers||reviewers||general monitoring by one of founders/team||No||-||yes can be signed or unsigned||No||No||@AcademicKarma, firstname.lastname@example.org||Platform|
|Peerage of Science||Purpose is to 1) provide transparent quality control and academic incentives for better peer review, and 2) eliminate wasteful iterations in the scientific publishing process flow. Manuscript can be submitted, review process begins with defined deadlines, reviews themselves are reviewed. Reviews are open to subscribing journals, offers to publish from subscribing journals can be accepted by the authors.||General (current community mostly in biological sciences)||manuscript and preprint||No||Formal, standardized to Essay (Intro,Merits, Critique, Discussion, References = max 1000 words (median: 560) and categorical Accept/Minor/Major/Discard revision recommendations on Question, Data, Methods, Inference, Writing.||No (but during the process open to all scientists with reviewing privileges on the platform)||2012 onwards||812 full Essays on 404 manuscripts + 1273 reviews on 765 conference abstracts||Peerage of Science Ltd (founders own 100%)||0 (publishers pay)||Currently reviews are not publicly indexed; reviewer owns copyright to his/her Essay and is encouraged to revise it into a commentary article.||authors||verified scientists (external evidence of first or corresponding authorship in ISI- or PubMed-indexed peer reviewed article is required before reviewing privileges are granted)||Open Engagement (for verified scientists who have been granted reviewing privileges)||"Peerage Essay Quality " or PEQ: https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/quality-indices/||https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/overview/||Default is anonymity for both authors and reviewers (editor can check reviewer name, reviewer is notified of the check). Author may submit as Onymous process, then all engaging must agree to display name.||-||Noemail@example.com||Platform|
|biOverlay||academic editors + peer review / no submissions - AEs select work that they feel is of particularly high importance or relevance for review by scientists.||life sciences||publicly posted work product with a focus on preprints||No||Associate editor compiles reviews, reviews are structured.||Yes||2/22/18-||12 reviewed manuscripts||CC-BY licensed. No current long-term sponsor. Developed using G&B Moore Fdn DDD grant money to Casey Greene||0 (other than development time; AE time; and reviewer time, but these are akin to current academic norms)||Registered with altmetrics. Stored as markdown. Could be deposited but aren't currently.||Associate editors select articles||Reviewers selected by AEs||AEs||No||-||Reviewers can remain anonymous but the AE for each paper may not.||No, misconduct in manuscript can be identified with tags, but no quantifiers.||No||Casey Greene, firstname.lastname@example.org||Platform|
|ScienceOpen||ScienceOpen is a freely-accessible and interactive discovery environment that opens up the context around research. Any paper or preprint (arXiv or with Crossref or Datacite DOI) can be reviewed. If the article/ preprint not available on the site, user can request. Overlay collections with topical focus can be created and managed by any interested and qualified editor||general||preprints and papers||Yes||Formal review with CC BY license and Crossref DOI deposited in new Peer Review schema. Informal comments also possible.||Yes||2014 onwards||146 formal peer review reports on the site. Many more comments||ScienceOpen is privately owned and financed by Tibor Tscheke and Alexander Grossmann.||0 (Business model based on services for publishers. All features free for researchers)||Reviews receive a Crossref DOI and are deposited in the newest Peer Review metadata schema that allows tracking to original paper/preprint DOI. Registered with altmetics and usage metrics tracked on ScienceOpen.||Any user can invite a review. Collection editors most commonly invite reviews.||Any qualified user (must have 5 publisher articles registered with ORCID) can review, with or without an invitation.||Usually Collection editor||Post Publication reviews can be "recommended" or commented on, eg: https://www.scienceopen.com/document/review?vid=538d5311-1f78-4668-a16c-208b435e9f1e&review=05dd3d28-c53b-4b28-a4a1-e14b18cb007a||http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-guidelines/||No anonymous commenting. All users must be registered with a DOI.||A five star rating system||Noemail@example.com||Platform|
|Self-Journal of Science||A multidisciplinary, community-governed repository offering journal-like services (open peer review, content curation) that enable an alternative evaluation of researchers and their work. Curators comment on importance of research.||Multidisciplinary||Any||Yes||Formal, open to public commentary review as annotation to specific parts of the manuscript||Yes||2015 onwards - website down on 2018 06 18||5 self-journals, 36 manuscripts, 240 members||Community-governance by the open membership Community Interest Company Open Scholar||Free for all||By URL handles||Any verified member of the academic community||Any verified member of the academic community||Any verified member of the academic community||Reviews can be up or down voted, eg http://www.sjscience.org/memberPage?uId=1&jId=14#journal||http://sjscience.org/about-sjs||No||Provides specific metrics based on the assessment of the reviewers||No||Michael Bon (firstname.lastname@example.org)||Platform|
|Hypothesis||Designed for general PPR and sentence-level annotation over the article itself, as a direct overlay. Can be brought by the user (plugin, bookmarklet, proxy) or embedded by the platform. Working with preprint services to include as the native layer for public, group or personal annotations.||All||Any||No||unstructured generally, but structure can be imposed through the rubric desired by an editor.||Can be public or private||2015-Present||2.7 million as of Feb 2018||Hypothes.is, a US 501.c3. All Code Open Source||Free for end users. Commercial publishers are asked to contribute to sustainability of project.||By URL and by DOI if that DOI is present as citation_doi in document metadata.||Anyone||Generally reviewers or readers||Whoever is enforcing the rubruc.||No||https://web.hypothes.is/community-guidelines/||Not yet, but anticipated that custom annotation layers could be configured to be anonymous later.||No||No||@dwhly||Platform/Tool|
|JMIR Preprints||The JMIR Preprint server at http://preprints.jmir.org/ contains unreviewed manuscripts, awaiting community review (open peer-review, see also What is open peer-review?), including (but not limited to) papers currently under review in JMIR journals or partner journals. The reviews themselves are currently not open, i.e. only the editor can see the reviews (at a later stage we may give authors control over what other users can see).||Medicine||Preprints||Yes||-||Comments are private, reviewer reports only sent to authors or partner journal editors, unreviewed preprints are available||11/2015-||-||JMIR||Free for submission of preprints||Reviews are not available to the public||Authors, commenters||Anyone with account||-||No||no specific page for preprint comments||No, review with PMIR ID only||No||Noemail@example.com||Experiment|
|Publons||Publons tracks peer review activity and also provides a way to write post publication peer reviews.||Any||Any publicly posted work||No||Unstructured but guidelines provided||Can be public or private||Any published paper||TBC||Clarivate Analytics||Free for academics||Comments not indexed||Reviewer||Anyone with account||-||Post publication reviews can be commented on, eg https://publons.com/publon/971453/#review-913100||https://publons.com/about/terms/#review-commenting-guidelines||Yes||Yes - the article gets a Publons score: https://publons.com/publon/971453/#review-913100||Nofirstname.lastname@example.org||Platform|
|F1000Prime||The F1000Prime Faculty comprises peer-nominated, internationally-renowned researchers across biology and medicine, who review and recommend the articles they consider of greatest interest and merit.||Life sciences||Articles and preprints||No||Recommendations include a 3-point rating (good, very good, exceptional), a classification to categorise the potential contribution of the article/prepreint, and an unstructured viewpoint from the recommending expert. There is also the option to dissent previously published recommendations.||No||2002-present||over 200,000||F1000||Personal and institutional subscriptions, monthly subscription costs $ 9.95 per month||All recommendations are assigned DOIs||Faculty Members||Only Faculty Members can make recommendations, but article commenting is also available to all registered users.||Recommendations are at the discretion of the Faculty Members, and they are supported by F1000 staff.||?||https://f1000.com/prime/about/whatis/how||No||Yes - badge is also displayed in Altmetrics, PubMed and other similar services||Noemail@example.com||Platform|
|F1000Research and funder-controlled platforms||The platform operates immediate publication followed by invited open peer review, post publication. Articles are published after a 'sanity' check; peer reviewers are then invited; peer reviews are published with the names of the reviewer; authors drive the process (no Editors) so can respond to reviewers and can revise; new versions are published and reviewers update their report until the authors decide they wish to stop; articles that achieve the necessary level of positive review are indexed in PubMed etc. This model also now underpins Wellcome Open Research, Gates Open Research, HRB Open Research, etc||Started in life sciences but expanding across all fields of research||Published manuscript (preprint-like), article||Yes||formal invited peer review, structured form||Yes (and signed)||2013-present||~6000||F1000||Article Processing Charges of $150, $500, $1000 depending on article length||All peer review reports receive a DOI and can be cited (and some are being cited). Citation includes details of article citation. Reviews indexed on article in PubMed Central once pass peer review||Authors (invitations sent by F1000 on their behalf)||Invited reviewers only||Authors suggest reviewers from a list or can suggest others; all suggestions checked by F1000 editorial team for suitability and conflicts. F1000 manages invites and publication of reviews||Peer reviews are not rated||https://f1000research.com/for-referees/guidelines||No||Yes - reviewers provide a status with badge (Approved; Approved with Reservations; Not Approved) and these statuses are included in the article title||Yesfirstname.lastname@example.org||Platform|
|SciRate||Supports commenting and allows users to "scite" (ie, vote up) interesting papers||General, Arxiv||Arxiv papers||No||unstructured comments||Yes||2017-||~50,000 articles, no many are commented||SciRate group||0||No indexing for comments||Authors||Registered users||-||Comments are not rated||-||No||The Scite score (measure of interest)||email@example.com.||Platform|
|Episciences||A platform for hosting overlay journals https://www.episciences.org/page/general-informations/?lang=en||Mathematics, social sciences||HAL, arXiv, CWI||No||-||-||Sep 29, 2016||-|
Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe
|0||No indexing for comments||-||-||-||-||https://www.episciences.org/page/reviewer-guidelines||no||no||yes||website contact form||Tool/Platform|
|Copernicus Interactive Public Peer Review|
|Mendeley||supports commentary on articles in groups and collaborative annotation in the desktop application||all fields||any||yes||unstructured||both public and private supported||-||-||Elsevier||free||no DOI or URL for specific comments, but that's planned||the reader or group manager||readers||group leaders||no||no||no, but there's no requirement to sign up under your real name, either||no||no||website contact form||Experiment|
|Peeriodicals||"A peeriodical is a lightweight virtual journal with you as the Editor-in-chief, giving you complete freedom in setting editorial policy to select the most interesting and useful manuscripts for your readers. The manuscripts you will evaluate and select are existing publications—preprints and papers. Thus, a peeriodical replicates all the functions of a traditional journal, including discovery, selection and certification, except publication itself."||all fields||any||no||All types of comments containing "Facts, logic and publicly verifiable information."||yes||2018-06-4 to present||-||The PubPeer Foundation||Free||DOI, PubMed ID, arXiv ID||The curator of the Peeriodical||The curator of the Peeriodical. The curator can also use the platform to solicit external reviews which are also public.||PubPeer||Visitors can comment on editors' choices (anonymously or under their own names, eg https://peeriodicals.com/peeriodical/dopescopes/publications/833A71FBE684381EE108BAB26859D5 )||-||firstname.lastname@example.org, @Peeriodicals||Platform|
|Outbreak Science||Not-for profit organization to support rapid dissemination of research pertinent to rapid epidemic responses. Posts alerts for preprints.||Epidemiology||Preprints||-||-||-||2016-present||-||Outbreak Science||Free||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||no||@outbreaksci||Platform|
The goal of Plaudit is to alleviate the pressure to publish in "high impact" but often paywalled and/or costly journals. It does so by allowing researchers to receive recognition for their work regardless of where it is published, in the form of recognition by peers through public endorsements. By integrating with open access journals and preprint servers, those endorsements are ephemeral to the research they endorse, and can help potential readers to identify interesting research even before it is published in a journal.
|Open Review||OpenReview aims to promote openness in scientific communication, particularly the peer review process, by providing a flexible cloud-based web interface and underlying database API|
|Neuro Preprints||"This blog will archive the weekly neuroscience preprints into different categories so that people can find them easily. We hope to start in the first weeks of 2019 "||Neuroscience||2019-|
|Rapid Reviews||Blogsite about innovations in metareview?|
|researchsqure (formerly Rubriq)||researchsquare|
“Share your opinions on the papers you read. Publish signed or anonymous ratings or reviews to have your say in the steering of science. Debunk shallow science or unearth hidden gems that did not make it to the top-ranked journals.”
|PaperRater||Collaborative reading,Tackle the paper onslaught with your peers|
Open post-publication peer review, optionally anonymous. “Read a paper on your own, or with a journal club. If you find something praiseworthy in it, write about it on Reffit. If there is a problem with the statistics or interpretation, write about it on Reffit. Read other people's comments and vote on them. The most informative praise and criticism will rise to the top, and we will have a summary that gives every scientist the insider's insight. Your reputation will grow as you write praises and criticisms that win votes.”
|Science Open Reviewed|
The Winnower is an open access online scholarly publishing platform that employs open post-publication peer review. We think transparency from start to finish is critical in scientific communication. Our aim is to revolutionize science by breaking down the barriers to scientific communication through cost-effective and transparent publishing for scholars. We hope you will join us!
Vox Charta is a clone of arXiv used primarily for astronomy and astrophysics paper discussions. Users of this website have the ability to vote for papers they would like to talk about at the next discussion session. All papers that received votes since the previous discussion appear in an “agenda” at the top of the main page, sorted by the number of votes each paper receives. A copy of this agenda is e-mailed out to the department shortly before the discussion itself.
The Selected Papers Network (also called SP Network) was an open-source project launched by Dr. Christopher Lee in 2013. It was created as a space where academics could read, share, and give feedback on articles and papers related to their field. The site allowed users to link their Google+ accounts so that their comments would be shared on social media as well as on the Selected Papers site. They had plans to support other social networks, like Twitter, but never got that far. They did create a system of tags to help facilitate conversation, like #mustread for a paper that a user thought was extremely important and #question for a post that was asking a question about a particular paper.
The medical education blog Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) has developed a new, open, inline peer review publication format that presents reviewer commentary within the body of the content. We hypothesized that the proximity and interactive nature of inline text will increase webpage engagement and investigated the association of this format with reader behavior.