Peer review in a post-eprints world: a proposal.

Area of Science:

• Biomedical research communication
• Scholarly publishing
• Open science

Background:

• Electronic preprint servers (e.g., Clinical Medicine & Health Research NetPrints) are emerging for archiving biomedical research without prior peer review.
• The biomedical community has been slow to adopt this novel communication method.
• Evaluating the quality and impact of electronic preprints (eprints) is crucial for their wider acceptance.

Purpose of the Study:

• To discuss improving the value and attractiveness of eprint servers.
• To propose methods for evaluating electronic preprints.
• To introduce a sequential review process for eprints.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of factors influencing acceptance in conventional peer review, such as scholarly consensus.
• Proposal of a sequential review model: initial eprint server acceptance, revision based on public/private comments, and solicited commissioned review for selected articles.
• Consideration of evaluative studies on eprint submission outcomes.

Main Results:

• Scholarly consensus is likely a key factor in evaluating eprints, similar to conventional peer review.
• A combination of unsolicited and commissioned reviews may improve article quality.
• A sequential review process offers potential advantages for authors and journal editors, enabling simultaneous submission to multiple journals.

Conclusions:

• A sequential review process, starting with eprint server acceptance and followed by revisions and commissioned reviews, can enhance the quality and utility of electronic preprints.
• This model could streamline the submission process for authors and provide editors with a curated selection of potentially high-impact research.
• Increased transparency, such as providing comparative statistics on eprint readership, would further enhance the value of eprint servers.