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


eLife 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.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Fark
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • FriendFeed
  • PDF
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

One Response to “Group review, continued”