Preprint commentary/open peer review/post publication peer review venues
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
$
%
123
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKAL
1
Related listsPlatform namePurpose or short description (any distinguishing features?)Disciplinary scopeType 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 datesCurrent # of commentsWho 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 twitterStandalone experiment/tool or Organization that runs this specific experiment
2
Preprint jounal clubs (tab 2 of this sheet)PubPeerThe "online journal club" that enables commenting on preprints and published journal papersAll fieldsAnything with recognized ID (DOI or arXiv ID)NoAll types of comments containing "Facts, logic and publicly verifiable information."Yes2012->70k articles with commentsThe PubPeer Foundation, a nonprofit (details: https://pubpeer.com/static/about)0DOI, PubMed ID, arXiv IDCommentersNo 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 guidelinesPubPeer 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#1yesNoNocontact@pubpeer.com, @PubPeerPlatform
3
Individuals willing to review preprints (and review suggestions)preLightsThe 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.BiologypreprintNoStructure is chosen by the preLighterYes20/02/18-Highlight posts = 30; Author comments = 5; Public comments = 1 The Company of Biologists0No DOI. Will be logged by altmetricspreLighters pick their preprintAuthors of the preprint are approached, public commenting is encouragedAuthor comments are uploaded by the preLighter. Public comments are moderated post-'publication' by someone in the preLights teamOpen to public commentN/AYesNoNoprelights@biologists.comExperiment
4
PREreviewOn 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 fieldspreprintNoWe 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. Yes9/2017-present52 public commentsSam Hindle and Daniela Saderi are the co-founders, Monica Granados. Our work is volunteer and the platform is free.FreePREreviews 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.NoContributors' guidelinesReviewers 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. NoNocontact@prereview.orgPlatform
5
APPRAISEAppraise 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 NoCommunity reviewYes--Michael Eisen---Community of reviewers---Reviewers are encouraged to be identifiedYes, proposed use of badge for reviewed statusYes-
6
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, paleontologypreprint (and postprint for the start)Norecommendation text + at least 2 formal, unstructured reviewsYes1/1/2017-60 (34 preprints+26 posprints)the PCI organizationFree for allrecommendations have DOI, reviews are in suppl. mat. of recommendationsauthors submit their preprintrecommenders of each PCI + invited reviewersrecommenders do + check by a managing boardNoyes, https://evolbiol.peercommunityin.org/about/help_generic#For%20reviewersrecommendations are signed, reviews are signed or anonymousYes (recommendations)Indexed in Europe PMC
(LABS_PUBS:"1826")
contact@peercommunityin.org, @PeerCommunityIn
Platform
7
Academic KarmaDesigned 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.GeneralpreprintNosignificance + commentspublic or private2014 onwards267 (197 papers) . 218 excluding reviews sourced via biorxivjointly owned by founders, originally developed using small Queensland govt grant0investigating depositing via crossrefreviewersreviewersgeneral monitoring by one of founders/teamNo-yes can be signed or unsignedNoNo@AcademicKarma, contact@preprint.spacePlatform
8
Peerage of SciencePurpose 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 preprintNoFormal, 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 onwards812 full Essays on 404 manuscripts + 1273 reviews on 765 conference abstractsPeerage 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.authorsverified 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.-Noadmin@peerageofscience.orgPlatform
9
biOverlayacademic editors + peer review / no submissions - AEs select work that they feel is of particularly high importance or relevance for review by scientists.life sciencespublicly posted work product with a focus on preprintsNoAssociate editor compiles reviews, reviews are structured. Yes2/22/18-12 reviewed manuscriptsCC-BY licensed. No current long-term sponsor. Developed using G&B Moore Fdn DDD grant money to Casey Greene0 (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 articlesReviewers selected by AEsAEsNo-Reviewers can remain anonymous but the AE for each paper may not. No, misconduct in manuscript can be identified with tags, but no quantifiers.NoCasey Greene, greenescientist@gmail.comPlatform
10
ScienceOpenScienceOpen 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 editorgeneralpreprints and papersYesFormal review with CC BY license and Crossref DOI deposited in new Peer Review schema. Informal comments also possible.Yes2014 onwards146 formal peer review reports on the site. Many more commentsScienceOpen 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 editorPost 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-e14b18cb007ahttp://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-guidelines/No anonymous commenting. All users must be registered with a DOI.A five star rating systemNoinfo@scienceopen.comPlatform
11
Self-Journal of ScienceA 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. MultidisciplinaryAnyYesFormal, open to public commentary review as annotation to specific parts of the manuscript Yes2015 onwards - website down on 2018 06 185 self-journals, 36 manuscripts, 240 membersCommunity-governance by the open membership Community Interest Company Open ScholarFree for allBy URL handlesAny verified member of the academic communityAny verified member of the academic communityAny verified member of the academic communityReviews can be up or down voted, eg http://www.sjscience.org/memberPage?uId=1&jId=14#journalhttp://sjscience.org/about-sjsNoProvides specific metrics based on the assessment of the reviewersNoMichael Bon (michael@sjscience.org)Platform
12
HypothesisDesigned 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.AllAnyNounstructured generally, but structure can be imposed through the rubric desired by an editor.Can be public or private2015-Present2.7 million as of Feb 2018Hypothes.is, a US 501.c3. All Code Open SourceFree 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.AnyoneGenerally reviewers or readersWhoever is enforcing the rubruc.Nohttps://web.hypothes.is/community-guidelines/Not yet, but anticipated that custom annotation layers could be configured to be anonymous later.NoNo@dwhlyPlatform/Tool
13
JMIR PreprintsThe 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).MedicinePreprintsYes-Comments are private, reviewer reports only sent to authors or partner journal editors, unreviewed preprints are available11/2015--JMIRFree for submission of preprintsReviews are not available to the publicAuthors, commentersAnyone with account-Nono specific page for preprint commentsNo, review with PMIR ID onlyNoNosupport@jmir.orgExperiment
14
PublonsPublons tracks peer review activity and also provides a way to write post publication peer reviews.AnyAny publicly posted workNoUnstructured but guidelines providedCan be public or privateAny published paperTBCClarivate AnalyticsFree for academicsComments not indexedReviewerAnyone with account-Post publication reviews can be commented on, eg https://publons.com/publon/971453/#review-913100https://publons.com/about/terms/#review-commenting-guidelinesYesYes - the article gets a Publons score: https://publons.com/publon/971453/#review-913100 Noinfo@publons.comPlatform
15
F1000PrimeThe 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 sciencesArticles and preprintsNoRecommendations 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.No2002-presentover 200,000F1000Personal and institutional subscriptions, monthly subscription costs $ 9.95 per monthAll recommendations are assigned DOIsFaculty MembersOnly 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/howNoYes - badge is also displayed in Altmetrics, PubMed and other similar servicesNoinfo@f1000.comPlatform
16
F1000Research and funder-controlled platformsThe 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, etcStarted in life sciences but expanding across all fields of researchPublished manuscript (preprint-like), articleYesformal invited peer review, structured formYes (and signed)2013-present~6000F1000Article Processing Charges of $150, $500, $1000 depending on article lengthAll 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 reviewAuthors (invitations sent by F1000 on their behalf)Invited reviewers onlyAuthors 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 reviewsPeer reviews are not ratedhttps://f1000research.com/for-referees/guidelinesNoYes - reviewers provide a status with badge (Approved; Approved with Reservations; Not Approved) and these statuses are included in the article titleYesresearch@f1000.comPlatform
17
SciRateSupports commenting and allows users to "scite" (ie, vote up) interesting papersGeneral, ArxivArxiv papersNounstructured commentsYes2017-~50,000 articles, no many are commentedSciRate group0No indexing for commentsAuthorsRegistered users-Comments are not rated-NoThe Scite score (measure of interest)nonoonsilk@gmail.com.Platform
18
EpisciencesA platform for hosting overlay journals https://www.episciences.org/page/general-informations/?lang=enMathematics, social sciencesHAL, arXiv, CWINo--Sep 29, 2016-
Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe
0No indexing for comments----https://www.episciences.org/page/reviewer-guidelinesnonoyeswebsite contact formTool/Platform
19
Copernicus Interactive Public Peer Review
20
Mendeleysupports commentary on articles in groups and collaborative annotation in the desktop applicationall fieldsany yesunstructuredboth public and private supported--Elsevierfreeno DOI or URL for specific comments, but that's plannedthe reader or group managerreadersgroup leadersnono no, but there's no requirement to sign up under your real name, eithernonowebsite contact formExperiment
21
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 fieldsany noAll types of comments containing "Facts, logic and publicly verifiable information."yes2018-06-4 to present-The PubPeer FoundationFreeDOI, PubMed ID, arXiv IDThe curator of the PeeriodicalThe curator of the Peeriodical. The curator can also use the platform to solicit external reviews which are also public.PubPeerVisitors can comment on editors' choices (anonymously or under their own names, eg https://peeriodicals.com/peeriodical/dopescopes/publications/833A71FBE684381EE108BAB26859D5 )-yesnonocontact@pubpeer.com, @PeeriodicalsPlatform
22
Outbreak ScienceNot-for profit organization to support rapid dissemination of research pertinent to rapid epidemic responses. Posts alerts for preprints.EpidemiologyPreprints---2016-present-Outbreak ScienceFree--------no@outbreaksciPlatform
23
Impactstory
24
Peer Library
25
Plaudit
26
Open ReviewOpenReview aims to promote openness in scientific communication, particularly the peer review process, by providing a flexible cloud-based web interface and underlying database API
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
Main menu