1. Universal Principled Review: A Community-Driven Method to Improve Peer Review
- Author
-
Matthew Krummel, Catherine Blish, Michael Kuhns, Ken Cadwell, Andrew Oberst, Ananda Goldrath, K. Mark Ansel, Hongbo Chi, Ryan O’Connell, E. John Wherry, Marion Pepper, Igor Brodsky, John Chang, Joseph R. Arron, Nick Haining, Deepta Bhattacharya, Mark Anderson, Carla V. Rothlin, Susan Schwab, Yasmine Belkaid, Ari Molofsky, Pete Savage, Daniel Mucida, Akiko Iwasaki, Gabriel Victora, Jessica Hamerman, David Masopust, Greg Barton, Susan Kaech, Prescott Woodruff, Daniel B. Stetson, Tiffany C. Scharschmidt, Ross Kedl, Elina Isabel Zúñiga, Alexander Hoffmann, Matt Williams, Katrin D. Mayer-Barber, Sunny Shin, Steven Bensinger, Li-Fan Lu, Mark Looney, June L. Round, Sebastian Amigorena, Jonathan Yewdell, Joseph Sun, and John T. Harty
- Subjects
0303 health sciences ,Quality management ,Biomedical Research ,Biology ,Transparency (behavior) ,Data science ,Quality Improvement ,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Data quality ,Criticism ,Periodicals as Topic ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,030304 developmental biology - Abstract
Despite being a staple of our science, the process of pre-publication peer review has few agreed-upon standards defining its goals or ideal execution. As a community of reviewers and authors, we assembled an evaluation format and associated specific standards for the process as we think it should be practiced. We propose that we apply, debate, and ultimately extend these to improve the transparency of our criticism and the speed with which quality data and ideas become public.
- Published
- 2019