|
|
"Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his works and accomplishments." — Nikola Tesla | |
|
|
In implementing published peer review history, we’ve chosen a modular, opt-in approach that invites researchers to choose the model that works best for them.
All PLOS journals practice single-blind peer review as a baseline. In practice, that means author names remain on the manuscript throughout the assessment process, while peer reviewer comments appear anonymously in the editorial decision letter. In addition, reviewers and authors each have a choice to make:
| |
|
|
Peer Reviewers
As a peer reviewer you can choose to sign your name to your review when you submit it. Remember, if you sign your name the authors and other reviewers of the manuscript will see it. | | |
Authors of accepted manuscripts
After acceptance, authors can choose whether to publish their peer review history alongside the final article. Your name will not appear unless you choose to sign your review. | | |
|
|
|
Depending on the author and reviewer selections, this allows for four peer review options: | |
|
|
|
Options for peer review at PLOS |
Author agrees to publish peer review history |
Reviewer agrees to sign peer review comments |
|
Single-blind peer review |
 |
 |
|
|
Signed peer review |
 |
|
 |
|
Single-blind and published peer review |
 |
|
|
|
Signed and published peer review |
 |
|
| | | |
|
|
|
PLOS’ published peer review history package includes the complete editorial decision letter with the peer reviews, as well as the authors’ responses to reviewers for each revision of the manuscript. When authors decide to publish their peer review history, the package appears on our website alongside the article and is syndicated to PMC. | |
|
|
|
We believe that increasing transparency during peer review has the potential to enhance scientific communication in key ways:
|
|
|
Enriching the scientific record by capturing expert opinion, giving context to evaluation and publication decisions, and increasing accountability and transparency at all stages of the process |
|
Elevating peer reviews to scholarly outputs in their own right, for which reviewers can receive academic credit |
|
Providing material for training and educating students about peer review | | |
|
|
|
|
|
“[Open Peer Review] improves auditability of the article itself and the journal's processes and thoroughness...It also helps build public trust in the process by removing the mystery of secret academic peer review, as well as showing the robustness of the method in action.” | |
– Thomas Shafee
La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
Public Library of Science
1160 Battery St. Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94111
US | | |
|
|
