Preprint review and curation

A list by Mark Williams

Interesting articles related to use of preprints and their review and curation activity.

31 articles Last updated

Showing page 1 of 4

  • Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Model of Scholarly Communication

    1. Katherine S. Corker
    2. Ludo Waltman
    3. Jonathon A Coates
    0 evaluations Published on Added on

    An overview of the PRC model and statistics relating to adoption. Sciety represents all organisations and communities offering variants of this model; curating preprints independent of review, community review and curation based on review.

  • Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science

    1. Michele Avissar-Whiting
    2. Frédérique Belliard
    3. Stefano M. Bertozzi
    4. Amy Brand
    5. Katherine Brown
    6. Géraldine Clément-Stoneham
    7. Stephanie Dawson
    8. Gautam Dey
    9. Daniel Ecer
    10. Scott C. Edmunds
    11. Ashley Farley
    12. Tara D. Fischer
    13. Maryrose Franko
    14. James S. Fraser
    15. Kathryn Funk
    16. Clarisse Ganier
    17. Melissa Harrison
    18. Anna Hatch
    19. Haley Hazlett
    20. Samantha Hindle
    21. Daniel W. Hook
    22. Phil Hurst
    23. Sophien Kamoun
    24. Robert Kiley
    25. Michael M. Lacy
    26. Marcel LaFlamme
    27. Rebecca Lawrence
    28. Thomas Lemberger
    29. Maria Leptin
    30. Elliott Lumb
    31. Catriona J. MacCallum
    32. Christopher Steven Marcum
    33. Gabriele Marinello
    34. Alex Mendonça
    35. Sara Monaco
    36. Kleber Neves
    37. Damian Pattinson
    38. Jessica K. Polka
    39. Iratxe Puebla
    40. Martyn Rittman
    41. Stephen J. Royle
    42. Daniela Saderi
    43. Richard Sever
    44. Kathleen Shearer
    45. John E. Spiro
    46. Bodo Stern
    47. Dario Taraborelli
    48. Ron Vale
    49. Claudia G. Vasquez
    50. Ludo Waltman
    51. Fiona M. Watt
    52. Zara Y. Weinberg
    53. Mark Williams
    0 evaluations Published on Added on

  • PReF: describing key Preprint Review Features

    1. Jessica Polka
    2. Iratxe Puebla
    3. Damian Pattinson
    4. Philip Hurst
    5. Gary S. McDowell
    6. Richard Sever
    7. Thomas Lemberger
    8. Michele Avissar-Whiting
    9. Philip N. Cohen
    10. Tony Ross-Hellauer
    11. Gabriel Stein
    12. Kathleen Shearer
    13. Clare Stone
    14. Victoria Tianjing Yan
    0 evaluations Published on Added on

    Each group on Sciety has a PReF table that describes their review process. This article details the features of preprint peer review and how they may differ from traditional peer review.

  • Enabling preprint discovery, evaluation, and analysis with Europe PMC

    1. Mariia Levchenko
    2. Michael Parkin
    3. Johanna McEntyre
    4. Melissa Harrison
    0 evaluations Published on Added on

    An outline of how our friends at EuropePMC index preprints and their evaluation activity, which includes reviews from Sciety groups provided via Docmaps. The data shows "As of 4 April 2024 there are 12,209 reviewed preprints in Europe PMC", whereas on Sciety this number is 33,046 evaluated preprints. They cite challenges of; "Distributed access points, Limited metadata, Divergence of practices and standards, Lack of machine-readable status updates" all of which resonate with the work on Sciety and by working together as part of a Preprint Review Metadata working group, we can go some way to overcoming these.

  • Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review

    1. Lindsay Nelson
    2. Honghan Ye
    3. Anna Schwenn
    4. Shinhyo Lee
    5. Salsabil Arabi
    6. B Ian Hutchins
    0 evaluations Added on

    This paper adds to evidence supporting publishing results early through preprinting and dispelling concerns about reliability compared to what are traditionally called "published" papers. The article activity on Sciety shows the versions published to Research Square and to the journal. From the discussion of the paper: "Overall, articles submitted to preprint servers by researchers, especially on COVID-19, are largely complete versions of similar quality to published papers and can be expected to change little during peer review. "

Next