Reasons to believe in this project

This process is free, transparent and in line with current trends in the practices for screening/evaluating science used by researchers (social networks, deposition of papers in open archives, such as bioRxiv). It is likely to succeed for the following reasons:

Recommending could be a progressive, “invasive” process

1- The recommendation process could coexist with the current system of traditional scientific journals. Authors would be free to submit a preprint that has been reviewed and recommended by a Peer Community in X to a scientific journal. For instance, in ecology and evolution, the Editors-in-Chief of Ecology Letters, EvolutionBMC Evol BiolOikos, Evolutionary Ecology, Evolutionary Applications, Molecular Ecology, Frontiers of Biogeography, Genetica, and Journal of Evolutionary Biology have indicated they will consider submissions of recommended preprints and they may use PCI reviews and recommendations for their own review processes.

2- Waiting for the comments and recommendation from a Peer Community in X can increase the value of an article. Indeed, if modifications to the preprint are required to obtain the recommendation, these modifications may substantially increase the quality of the article before its submission to a traditional journal, thus increasing the likelihood of acceptance. The use of the recommendation system could then increase gradually, right from the start of its existence.

3- With the attribution of increasing numbers of recommendations to papers published in journals and deposited in open archives, these recommendations might gradually become the standard for evaluation of the quality of papers. This standard would have the advantage of being more direct and transparent than the currently used loose proxies of paper quality (such as the impact factor of journals). This would, in turn, encourage authors to deposit more of their papers in open archives, to get them recommended.

4- Peer Community in recommendations might become sufficiently prestigious that the authors would be confident that unpublished preprints deposited in open archives and then recommended by Peer Community in would be citable, cited and recognized. This situation would encourage them to deposit their preprints in such archives.

5- The free recommending of papers deposited in open archives could, therefore, become more and more common. This project would not, therefore, require authors to gamble dangerously on a new hypothetical, fragile system..

Researchers could easily join the project

1- Becoming a recommender of a Peer Community in X would not be associated with a substantial workload. Contrary to the current system, recommenders, unlike associate editors in traditional scientific journals, would have no commitment to review and recommend papers. Each recommender would rather be encouraged to review and recommend 1 or 2 articles per year in average. The constraints of this system are therefore self-imposed rather than external, which would favor participation in the Peer Community in X.

2- Each recommender of a Peer Community in X in has his/her own personal page for displaying and reporting their reviews, comments and recommendations. This makes it easier to recognize the reviewing work that each researcher has performed for the community (not unlike the Publon initiative based on traditional journals). This might make being a recommender of a Peer Community in X very attractive.

3- One key advantage of this approach is that the project can be successful even if some of the recommenders of a Peer Community in X failed to provide any comments, reviews or recommendations. We expect that each recommender would review and recommend 1 or 2 articles per year in average. Hence, the project will not be jeopardized if some recommenders are inactive.

The project may receive strong institutional support

Strong institutional support (e.g. from USDA, NSF, ERC, Universities, Inra, CNRS, etc.) is a distinct possibility, because the current publishing system entails a considerable financial burden for these institutions. Some Learning society (e.g. the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the Sociedad Española de Biología Evolutiva (SESBE), Société Française d’Écologie et d’Évolution (Sfe2)), French institutes (e.g. Inra), research laboratories (e.g. UMR CBGP, UMR ISA) and institutions (Labex CeMEB, BASC, CEBA, TULIP, COTE, ECOFECT)   already provided support to the initiative.


See the Project in a few lines

See How does it work?

See the Recommended Preprints

See How and why submitting your preprints to PCI?

See How and why becoming a PCI recommender?

See How to create a new PCI?

See the Reasons to believe in this project

See Who supports Peer Community in?

See the Code of conduct

See the Movies and posters

See the FAQ

See À propos / Legal Notice



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s