Researchers push preprint reviews to improve scientific communications

Senior scientists used to peer review manuscripts before they were published. James Fraser is a structural Biologist at the University of California, San Francisco. Fraser and his lab focus on reviewing preprint studies that are posted online whenever authors want, instead of the peer review process.

Fraser argues thatquing preprints offer advantages over traditional peer review. It is possible for authors to get expert feedback in days instead of months. Reviewers can focus on the quality of the science and not worry about whether a paper is a good fit for a specific journal. The reviews can be shared with other people. It is often locked up in the traditional review process, which is confidential, he says.

Fraser is not the only one who sees promise in preprints reviews. Preprint reviews are useful for journals that will eventually publish a paper. Reviewing preprints could eventually replace journal publications. There are some hurdles that face the widespread adoption of preprint reviewing. More than 200 scientists, journal editors, and research funders attended a workshop this month to explore ways to overcome them.

Preprints have been used in some fields for a long time, but the COVID-19 Pandemic caused many life scientists to use them. Many researchers were concerned that the preprints were too rushed and needed some quick vetting. The number of life sciences preprints has more than doubled in the last four years to 150,000 a year. The number of preprints in the U.S. National Institute of Health's database has increased.

Scientists don't use preprint server mechanisms to critique papers. Only 5% of the nearly 180,000 preprints posted on the bioRxiv biomedical research site had been commented on.

Catriona MacCallum, a former journal editor who is now director of open science at the publisher, said that the lack of numbers highlight the cultural barriers in the scientific community. Academic scientists are reluctant to review preprints because they don't count as labor in promotion or tenure decisions.

Prereview tries to make reviewing more appealing by acting as a kind of message board for preprint authors and reviewers Authors can post a preprint and request a review if the preprint has a digital object Identifier, a code that eases citation and index. The ORCID is a tracking system used by many academic scientists.

The volunteers have posted hundreds of full reviews. Prereview is trying to broaden its reach by establishing agreements with preprint sites to relay author requests for reviews.

Preprint reviewers have a way to claim credit for their work. Many scientists who participate in traditional peer review list the journals that asked them to serve as reviewers on their CV. That is a key step in the process of becoming an editor at a journal.

Preprint reviewers can cite the work in their portfolios when applying for jobs, promotions, or grants thanks to the incentives provided by PREreview. Prereview and other platforms allow reviewers to remain anonymous, but are considering ways to let reviewers reveal their identities if they so choose.

Whether a preprint reviewer is qualified and free of potential conflicts of interest is not directly addressed by PREreview and similar services. Editors rely on the honor system when vetting reviewers at many journals.

The Review Commons, run by EMBO Press, is one of the preprint review services that screens reviewers. Editors at one partner were initially wary of letting others do the vetting. He said that many of the editors have been satisfied with the results. The journal has published 150 of the 400 manuscripts it has received from Review Commons.

Preprint reviews shouldn't be seen as a way to get a paper published in an established journal according to some workshop speakers. Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of eLife, said that a system that only feeds preprints into journals would not appeal to people who review preprints. Eisen and others think of a world in which some preprints and their reviews are the final product. The preprint doesn't get a label that says "accept" or "reject", leaving it to the reader to decide.

eLife decided in October to abandon traditional acceptance decisions and focus on providing peer review services. Eisen hopes the move will loosen academia's reliance on tying tenure, promotion, and other rewards to publishing in for-profit,selective journals.

Technical and financial challenges are faced by expanding preprints review. The buttons for commenting are complicated and cumbersome, according to some workshop speakers. It's hard to find those associated with a specific preprint or know when a new one has been posted in most preprint reviews. Many platforms support preprint reviews, but there is no clear business model for doing so. One option is for libraries to subscribe to services that give reviews, similar to the way libraries now give packages of journals.

As more researchers see their value, the advocates of preprint reviews think they will spread. Many researchers were against the idea of posting a preprint. The discussion now focuses on how to review them.

Eisen said that publishing something that challenges people's assumptions is almost always opposed to by them. Trying to be guided by the opinions of others is not a good idea.

Ron Vale, a cell biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, is one of the organizers of the workshop.

Preprint reviewing needs to be the future of science according to the science program officer with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. He said the challenge was figuring out how to make it work.