[LINK] Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first, then review online?

[Antony Barry]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 9:58 PM Stephen Loosley <stephenloosley at zoho.com>
wrote:

> Will Chinese scientists make or break the uprising in academic peer-review
> publishing?
>
> A new publishing model is causing ructions in academia, and it could be
> China who decides the winner
>

ELife was new to me so I had a discussion with Perplexity AI about it then
asked for a summery which follows -

## eLife's New Refereeing Model: An Informal Report

eLife, a prominent scientific journal, introduced a revolutionary
publishing model in January 2023, stirring up both excitement and
controversy in the academic community. This report summarizes the key
aspects of the new model, its implications, and the measures in place to
maintain quality and handle controversial topics.

### The New Model: Key Features

1. All peer-reviewed papers are published as "Reviewed Preprints" on
eLife's website.
2. No traditional accept/reject decisions after peer review.
3. Each Reviewed Preprint includes:
   - An eLife assessment
   - Public peer reviews
   - Optional author response
4. Authors can revise their preprint or declare it final.
5. eLife remains selective about which submissions undergo peer review.

### Goals and Controversy

The model aims to increase transparency, give authors more control, and
shift focus from journal prestige to content. However, it has sparked
debate:

**Pros:**
- Faster research dissemination
- More nuanced paper evaluation
- Increased transparency

**Cons:**
- Concerns about quality control
- Loss of Impact Factor
- Potential for system manipulation
- Reduced author accountability
- Confusion about article status

### Quality Assurance Measures

Despite the controversy, eLife has implemented several measures to maintain
review quality:

1. Selective review process
2. Expert reviewer selection
3. Collaborative assessments
4. Editorial oversight
5. Standardized vocabulary for assessments
6. Focus on constructive feedback
7. Iterative improvement process
8. Transparency through public reviews

### Handling Controversial Topics

eLife has also put measures in place to ensure fair treatment of
controversial subjects:

1. Careful expert reviewer selection
2. Collaborative assessments to balance viewpoints
3. Editorial oversight
4. Transparency through public reviews
5. Author response opportunity
6. Iterative improvement process
7. Focus on evidence-based evaluation
8. Facilitation of open scientific discourse
9. Emphasis on constructive feedback

### Conclusion

eLife's new model represents a bold experiment in scientific publishing,
aiming to address longstanding issues in academic peer review. While it has
generated significant debate, the journal has implemented various measures
to maintain quality and fairness. The long-term impact of this approach on
scientific publishing remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks a
significant shift in how we approach the dissemination and evaluation of
scientific research.

______
Unfortunately the summary process does not carry over the source material.

Tony

-- 
Mob:04 3365 2400 Email: antonybbarry at gmail.com, antonybbarry at me.com