Universities should consider whether academics have spent time reviewing preprints when making promotion or hiring decisions, leading European and American scientists recommend.

In an editorial published in??on 29 February, representatives from dozens of major funders, top research institutions and academic publishers set out a blueprint to accelerate the use of preprints and open peer review which, they claim, ¡°has the potential to be more thorough, inclusive and collegial than traditional peer review¡±.

¡°Building on the growing enthusiasm within the community, the time is right to promote the growth of this practice so that scholarly publishing may become more constructive, equitable, and transparent¡±, explains the ¡°consensus view¡±, which draws signatories from organisations including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the European Research Council and the UK¡¯s Medical Research Council.

Among the paper¡¯s recommendations are that funders, departments and institutions should ¡°consider preprints and their reviews in evaluations for funding, hiring, degree requirements, fellowship eligibility, tenure, and promotion¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Make this consideration explicit on your website and in application instructions, for example, by adopting a CV format that enables listing preprints and their reviews (where the candidate is an author of a preprint) and reviews of preprints (where the candidate is a preprint reviewer),¡± the paper adds.

In addition, institutions should ¡°allocate funding and support for preprint services¡± and ¡°provide peer review training that incorporates publicly posting reviews on preprints¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Scholarly journals are also encouraged to ¡°encourage or require preprint posting at submission¡± and ensure that preprint reviews can be transferred into traditional peer review to inform editorial decisions.

Individual researchers are asked to list preprint reviews on their CVs or laboratory websites, and also should be more explicit about inviting reviews when posting preprints on servers, the paper suggests.

The consensus view, signed by 50 institutional representatives, follows a workshop in Virginia in December 2022 which brought together representatives from funders, universities, preprint servers, journals, indexers, infrastructure providers and review services to discuss steps to drive community support and recognition for preprint peer review.

The statement says the use of preprints could help to ¡°shift the culture of peer review toward constructive collaboration¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Just 10 years ago, preprinting in many disciplines barely existed,¡± it notes. ¡°Although preprint review is in its infancy, momentum is building rapidly, and we feel the potential benefits are already evident.

¡°Building on the growing enthusiasm within the community, the time is right to promote the growth of this practice so that scholarly publishing may become more constructive, equitable, and transparent,¡± it concludes.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com