Recent modifications

10 March 2017: 100 more recommenders have joined Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology since January. This sums up to more than 260 recommenders.

3 January 2017: The first Peer Community in has been launched: Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology

More than 160 recommenders have already joined Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology.  Visit its website : www.evolbiol.peercommunityin.org

10th August 2016: Several modifications have been made in the different sections of the web site.

The project has been clarified to take into account various comments that have been made by the researchers supporting this project.

21st July 2016: Various modifications in “How does it work?”.

The procedure is simplified and a sentence about conflict of interests has been added.

9th June 2016: Modifications of the timing of the reviewing process of submitted manuscripts in “How does it work?”. Reviews would be due in about a month (and not in 15 days):

4- The “recommender” writes one review and finds at least one additional reviewer within (preferentially) or outside the Peer community in X, on the basis of his/her expertise. Reviewers write their reviews within about a month.

1st June 2016: Various modifications + Question added to the FAQ concerning the possibility to submit to journals preprints deposited in open archives

Would scientific journals accept submission of manuscripts deposited in open archives?

More and more journals accept for submission articles that are deposited as preprints in open archives. See http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php

31st May 2016: Questions added to the FAQ concerning the work load of the members

What would I have to do as a member of the Peer community in ?

Becoming a member of a Peer Community in would not be associated with a substantial workload. Each member would review and recommend 1 or 2 articles per year in average.

How many articles will be reviewed/recommended by each member of the Peer community in?

Becoming a member of a Peer Community in would not be associated with a substantial workload. Each member would review and recommend 1 or 2 articles per year in average.

Item added to the Project in a few lines and to Reasons to believe in this project to indicate the work load of the members

Becoming a member of a Peer Community in would not be associated with a substantial workload. Each member would review and recommend 1 or 2 articles per year in average.

28th May 2016: Question added to the FAQ concerning the size of the Reviewing board and the reviewing effort of the members

What is the desirable/expected size of the Reviewing board?
We expect each Peer Community to gather several hundreds members. This size would be sufficient to recommend a large number of manuscripts even if each member recommend as few as one or two manuscripts per year.

Modification of an answer in the FAQ concerning the nomination of the Managing board members

What is the Managing Board?
A Managing Board of six people is nominated to ensure the correct functioning of the Peer community. Two members of the Managing Board are replaced each year by two members of the Peer community in X. They are chosen randomly among members of the Peer community in X. Chosen members would be allowed to decline. In such case, another person is chosen at random and so on until two members are nominated. The Managing Board deals with problems arising between authors and “recommenders”. It detects and deals with dysfunctions of the Peer community in X, and may exclude members of the Reviewing Board, if necessary.

20th May 2016: Question added to the FAQ concerning unread manuscripts

Will some papers be left unread?
Each new paper for which the Peer community has been alerted is read by at least 3 Peer community members. If none of them is willing to recommend the paper, a rejection message is sent to the corresponding author. Meanwhile, the author is alerted each time a Peer community member reads and refuses/starts the recommendation process of the article. This allows the authors to be informed and to choose to submit the paper elsewhere. The Managing Board ensures that the manuscripts do not stay unread too long.

See the Project in a few lines

See the Reasons to believe in this project

See How does it work?

See Why Peer Community in?

See Who supports Peer Community in?

See the FAQ

See the Movies and posters

See Recent modifications

See About

Photography Credit: Ben Lee, Stockholm Library (CC-BY-NS-2.0)