PLOS Journals Now OPEN for Published Peer Review
Starting nowadays, ALL PLOS journals will be offering authors the approach to put up their peer evaluate historical past along their approved manuscript! We’ve been excited to make this announcement, and make primary strides in opposition to a extra open newsletter procedure, since ultimate fall after we signed ASAPbio’s open letter committing to clear peer evaluate choices.
What will it appear to be?
Our philosophy going into this challenge has been to open up the peer evaluate procedure in some way that provides authors and reviewers extra alternatives about how they put up and declare credit score for their paintings.
As prior to, our peer evaluate procedure defaults to single-blind, even if reviewers find a way to signal their names to their opinions if they need. What we’ve added to our procedure is an possibility at acceptance for authors to make a decision whether or not to put up the whole peer evaluate historical past along their paintings. This package deal contains the editor’s complete choice letter, entire with reviewer feedback and authors’ responses for every revision of the manuscript. Peer evaluate historical past could have its personal DOI enabling reviewers to take credit score and earn citations for their contributions. If the reviewers have selected to signal their opinions, their title will even seem at the printed opinions however they are able to additionally selected to stay nameless.
All manuscripts submitted after May 22, 2019 will probably be eligible for this selection if approved at a PLOS Journal. Here’s a take a look at the diversities of open our opt-in type supplies:
A significant step for PLOS, and scholarly conversation
The peer evaluate historical past unearths a very powerful views and selections that provide further context for readers and researchers. Because of the possible advantages, we’re making this selection to be had now on all seven PLOS journals.
Other journals that experience experimented with printed peer evaluate fashions have proven that the standard of comments equipped is no less than as just right as different fashions – we expect it has the possible to be even higher via higher responsibility and transparency. We’re construction off the rules and courses discovered by means of those examples and are assured our type can be offering authors extra alternatives to make their analysis and the publishing procedure open, and show off the rigorous evaluate in their paintings.
Through the size of our publishing output throughout all seven PLOS journals, we see this as a chance to make an important trade within the scholarly conversation panorama and lay the root for a extra open view of the manuscript dealing with procedure from begin to end.
Open past Open Access
While the advantages of transparency are a lot of, we see printed peer evaluate as a a very powerful first step in opposition to fixing two elementary issues: reviewer credit score and public working out of the peer evaluate procedure. So a ways, Open Access has made it imaginable for analysis to succeed in a world neighborhood of readers however we have now now not but demonstrated the paintings that is going on in the back of the scenes to validate medical claims.
Publishing peer evaluate historical past is a way of enriching the medical report by means of giving context to analysis and newsletter selections. We hope this may be the most important step towards raising peer opinions to scholarly outputs in their very own proper that reviewers can take credit score for.
In conjunction with the paintings it describes, peer evaluate historical past can be a supply of subject material for teaching scholars and most of the people about peer evaluate. Our content material may be gadget readable, paving the best way for deeper research and dialogue by means of the neighborhood.
We’ve advanced this selection in session with our editors who’re devoted to bettering our journals, and we additionally dedicated to reporting again our findings. As we be informed extra about how printed peer evaluate shapes creator and reviewer alternatives, and reader revel in, we’ll proceed to replace you on what we discover.