eLife's unique publishing model has sparked vigorous discussion about the role of editors in selecting research articles for publication. In October, the organization announced that it is eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review and instead focusing on preprint review and assessment.
In support, nine funders have committed to including reviewed preprints in the evaluation process, even if they lack the traditional stamp of approval from journal editors. These supporters are the Gates Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and Wellcome.
The current science publishing system relies on a model of peer review that focuses on directing papers to journals. These reviews are not made publicly available, stripping them of their potential value to more comprehensive readers and leading committees to judge scientists based on where, rather than what, they publish. This can impact hiring, funding, and promotion decisions and highlights the need for a system of review that helps funding and research organizations assess scientists based on the research itself and related peer reviews.
Researchers globally are taking action to make science publishing and its place in science better, for example, by preprinting their work and advocating for others to do so. This gives them greater control over their work and enables them to communicate their findings immediately and widely and receive feedback quickly.
Several initiatives are now taking this further by bringing communities of experts together to openly review and curate research posted as preprints, helping readers navigate the preprint landscape and assess new findings for themselves.
While significant, such initiatives are not without their controversies. By decoupling the process of peer review from the journal, they challenge the traditional publishing system that has remained essentially unchanged since the 20th Century. But preprint servers are now making it easier for the community to innovate in these ways and create something new.
The following funding and research organizations have committed to recognizing reviewed preprints in research assessment. Others can join them by contacting journal.development@elifesciences.org.
Supporting organizations include Cambridge University Libraries, Champalimaud Foundation, cOAlition S, Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Research Libraries UK, Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute, and Wellcome.
Click here to read the original press release.
