{"id":5792,"date":"2019-06-04T13:05:52","date_gmt":"2019-06-04T13:05:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=5792"},"modified":"2019-06-04T13:05:52","modified_gmt":"2019-06-04T13:05:52","slug":"could-preprint-servers-become-self-organising-peer-review-platforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2019\/06\/04\/could-preprint-servers-become-self-organising-peer-review-platforms\/","title":{"rendered":"Could preprint servers become self-organising peer review platforms?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"The<\/p>\n

With over 4,700 open access repositories<\/a> in operation, the use of preprints (research papers made publicly available before publication in a peer reviewed journal) is growing. However, the lack of peer review means that it may be harder to identify high-quality papers<\/a> and to interpret and cite the findings<\/a> published in these manuscripts. In an article<\/a> published on the LSE Impact Blog<\/a>, Wang LingFeng discusses how peer review for preprints could be implemented.<\/p>\n

A survey conducted by arXiv<\/a> in 2016, found that 58% of its users supported a peer review system for preprints<\/a>. A Community Peer Review model was suggested, in which registered readers comment on and rate manuscripts. LingFeng highlights 3 potential pitfalls of this system: the potential for unethical behaviour (soliciting favourable comments), papers receiving uneven review attention regardless of quality, and the lack of control over whether, and how rapidly, papers are reviewed.<\/p>\n

LingFeng offers an alternative concept \u2013 self-organising peer review (SOPR)<\/a> \u2013 an automated method which would match reviewers to articles, by ranking both. Under SOPR:<\/p>\n