Researchers push preprint reviews to improve scientific communications | Science | AAAS

"Critiquing preprints offers big advantages over traditional, journal-based peer review, Fraser argues. Authors can get expert feedback more quickly—sometimes in days instead of months—and from a bigger and more diverse pool of reviewers. It also can be more efficient: Reviewers can focus solely on the quality of the science without worrying about whether a paper is a good fit for a particular journal. And the reviews can be shared with everyone, not just authors and editors. “This is valuable stuff that’s often locked up” in the traditional review process, which at most journals is confidential, he notes. Fraser isn’t alone in seeing promise in preprint reviews, which represent a radical shift in scholarly communication. Some regard preprint reviews as valuable input for journals that might ultimately publish a paper. Others hope reviewed preprints could ultimately take the place of journal publications. But the widespread adoption of preprint reviewing faces some thorny obstacles. This month, Fraser joined more than 200 scientists, journal editors, and research funders at a workshop that explored ways to overcome them...."