“Lauren Smith…emphasised the need for more intentional community-building to support such fragile efforts“

Two points I think stand out here and eLife may not love the findings: “The interrater agreement and interrater reliability for the criteria “significance of findings” and “strength of support” were similarly low, as previous empirical studies for gatekeeping journals have shown. The fairness of peer review is not or only slightly compromised“ & “Given this evidence for expert judgement in peer review and other decision-making processes, the use of expert judgement for final decisions on whether or not to publish a manuscript seems questionable“. For me, this really highlights the problem with PRC - there isn’t a meaningful improvement of peer review.

Excellent piece from James

Stefanie provides an excellent series of clear actionable steps. Fantastic article.

Dec 3-4

I strongly believe that the way to make this distinction is on values and governance, not commercial or not.

This is a genuinely fantastic overview

We’ll also be writing about this theme soon

It was great to see our own Preprints in Motion podcast featured in the social media announcement

Well worth a read

Strikingly low success rates! This should really push funding agencies to adopt a lottery approach, it seems the only genuinely fair path forward.

Can personally attest to the importance of this one. But it’s important to remember that PI’s don’t get adequate training in these skills, a gap that we hope to fill at least a little.

Extremely disappointing and a real lack of leadership

Well worth a watch and an strong overlap with us

Replacing one bad metric with another isn’t a great step