Group review, continued
I love it when other people use my ideas, especially before I think them up. After my previous post advocating group review of scientific articles
, it was pointed out to me that two journals are already using group reviews to referee their papers. One is Frontiers
(which is a collection of journals, rather than a single journal), the other is eLife
. I have written about Frontiers in a late correction to the previous post
. Frontiers is a bit like PLoS-One
in terms of the criteria it uses for accepting papers: the science has to be solid, but impact is not considered. They do have a post-publication tiering
system, where the articles of higher impact, novelty, and interest "climb" up.
@iddux - sounds like what you are describing is close to the process used by @frontiersin journals - worth taking a look at their system
— Casey Bergman (@caseybergman) December 23, 2012
is the recently-launched, long-awaited "superjournal"
, published under the auspices of HHMI and Max-Planck Institutes, and which proposes to be a top-tier, highly selective journal with a fast peer-review system. (As an aside, Leighton Pritchard has written a thoughtful post
on the implications of such a journal when it was first announced.) Apparently, as part of the review system, they use a group-review system. Here is eLife's video explaining their pipeline.
And here is Idan Segev, editor in chief of Frontiers Neuroscience, explaining the motivation behind Frontiers Journals peer-review system:
It seems like group peer-review is taking off. We'll probably find some snags along the way, but I believe that overall it's a good thing.