Why preprint journal clubs?
We believe that scientific manuscripts should be read and evaluated by a diverse population of trained and interested scientists at different career levels. An easy way to provide early feedback on emerging scientific output is to collaboratively discuss and review preprints at academic journal clubs (JCs).
We try to make it easier for scientists around the world to run preprint JCs and share the fruits of their discussions with the rest of the community. Traditional JCs – in which groups of scientists discuss published work – are a staple in academia; they are a way for scientists to collectively engage with others’ discoveries, and for early-career researchers (ECRs) to learn how to critically evaluate research output. However, the results of those discussions do not usually leave those meeting rooms, and certainly cannot contribute to improving journal-published, inalterable scientific articles.
Discussing and reviewing preprints at JCs can change that. The valuable feedback that is collected during the JC can be compiled into a review and sent back to the authors, who then have the chance of integrating that feedback into their work. Furthermore, posting these reviews publicly has the advantage of helping ECRs or people who are outside of that given scientific field develop their ability to evaluate research with a critical eye.
On PREreview, we try to make it easier for scientists around the world to run preprint JCs and share the fruits of their discussions by providing
support and training for preprint peer review, and by creating a space to collaboratively engage with preprints and share constructive feedback.
Why training ECRs on peer review?
Formal peer review training for ECRs is rare and variable in quality
In our
community opinion survey, we found that only 18% of the respondents had received peer review training, even though 72% had contributed to the peer review process. This suggests that very few scientists are trained when they write their first review – and even when they are, the training may vary greatly in quality. This is not only worrisome for journal editors because they will find it harder to recruit new qualified reviewers, but it also denies ECRs the opportunity to learn valuable critical thinking skills from the early stages of their scientific training.
ECRs are excluded from the peer review process
ECRs are rarely invited to engage in traditional peer review. This is likely because they are either not known to journal editors or they are believed to be less competent than more senior researchers at providing feedback on their peers’ work. Even though it is hard to quantify in a predominantly single-blind peer review system, ECRs have been shown to write higher quality and more constructive peer reviews compared to more senior scientists.
We are dedicated to training a diverse community of reviewers, and monitoring their progress and impact on the future of peer review. Moving forward, we envision PREreview as a platform in which a continuum will exist, from the collective peer-to-peer and mentor-to-mentee peer review reports that result from preprint journal clubs, through a matured state in which ECRs have gained the confidence and expertise to contribute preprint peer reviews on their own.
Inspired by Mozilla and OpenCon, we plan to foster the growth of the individual as well as our community by hosting monthly community calls in which members can meet each other, attend webinars with journal editor guests, learn about best practices on peer review, and be part of inter-institutional PREreview journal clubs (
LivePREJC) that will connect scientists from across the world.
Our Team