**Objective** In 2020, eLife piloted a review process in which
peer reviews were posted publicly to preprints while
manuscripts were simultaneously evaluated for publication.
This pilot built on a 2018 eLife trial that published all
reviewed submissions and found that a lower percentage of
submissions were sent for peer review in the pilot process
compared with the regular process.1,2 An exploratory
descriptive analysis was performed, comparing decision
outcomes in the 2020 pilot with the regular process and checking for outcome disparities between senior author
demographic characteristics.

**Design** Between March 2020 and November 2020, authors
could opt into the preprint review process during submission.
In this process, authors committed to publicly posting the
reviews alongside their preprint, irrespective of eLife’s
decision. As an incentive, authors bypassed triage unless the
editors found fundamental flaws. Data on submission
outcomes were retrieved from eLife’s submission system. The
senior author’s demographic information was provided by the
submitting author via an optional survey. The percentages of
reviewed and accepted submissions were compared between
the preprint review and the regular review processes. This
comparison was also performed based on the senior author’s
gender and geographic region.

**Results** eLife received 420 preprint review and 6397 regular
submissions. A higher percentage of preprint review
submissions (345 [82.1%]) were reviewed relative to regular
submissions (2057 [32.2%]). A higher percentage of preprint
review submissions were also accepted (96 [22.9%])
compared with regular submissions (1071 [16.7%]). A slightly
higher percentage of preprint review submissions from
women senior authors were reviewed compared with men
(**Table 61**). There was little difference in the percentage of
submissions accepted based on the senior author’s gender for
regular submissions (**Table 61**). In both processes, the
highest percentages of submissions reviewed and accepted
were from senior authors in North America, and the lowest
percentages were from Asia (**Table 61**). A higher percentage
of submissions were accepted from Asia in the preprint
review process relative to the regular process, although few
senior authors from Asia submitted to preprint review (n =
23), so these results must be interpreted with caution.

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/cc4ce8603b72ca54470724ee0e28cb9c.png)

**Conclusions** A higher percentage of preprint review
submissions were reviewed and accepted, which suggests that
improving access to peer review may provide a mechanism to
mitigate bias in publishing. However, large differences in the
number of submissions between the preprint review and
regular processes and some small preprint review sample
sizes limit the analysis that could be performed and
conclusions that can be drawn. Future initiatives should take
greater care to engage broader communities, especially in
Asia. These results informed eLife’s shift to a “publish, then
review” model of publishing.3

**References**

1. Eisen MB. Peer review: new initiatives to enhance the value
of eLife’s process. Inside eLife. November 7, 2019. Accessed
June 8, 2022. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/
e9091cea/peer-review-new-initiatives-to-enhance-the-value-
of-elife-s-process
2. Smith E, Collings A. Peer review: first results from a trial at
eLife. Inside eLife. January 7, 2019. Accessed June 8, 2022.
https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/262c4c71/peer-review-
first-results-from-a-trial-at-elife
3. Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens B, Harper DM, Weigel
D, Zaidi M. Peer review: implementing a “publish, then
review” model of publishing. eLife. 2020;9:e64910.
doi:10.7554/eLife.64910

**Conflict of Interest Disclosures** None reported.

**Acknowledgment** The authors thank Peter Rodgers (eLife’s
features editor) for comments and suggestions.

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/efb0a1578fa066fda1860b300c2e67e4.png)



Results From a Preprint Review Opt-in Review Process at eLife

eLife launched a trial peer-review process in June 2018, designed to give authors greater control over the decision to publish. Authors opted into the trial process when submitting their manuscript for consideration and, once the eLife editors decided that a submission would be sent for in-depth peer review, the journal was committed to publishing the paper. Authors chose how to address the concerns raised during review and, upon receiving the revised submission, editors rated whether these concerns had been addressed. This editorial rating was published with the paper, as were the decision letter after peer review, the separate reviews, and the accompanying author responses. The trial process was available until more than 300 authors opted in (in total, 313 opted in) and we compare these with 616 papers submitted into the regular process during the same period of time. Overall, the trial review process resulted in a significantly higher acceptance rate (20.8% compared with 14.9% in the regular process), with all the issues raised by reviewers addressed by the authors in the vast majority (88%) of revised submissions. We observed no significant difference in acceptance rates for male and female last authors in the trial process (21% and 20.6% respectively). However, we observed marginally higher acceptance rates for late-career researchers (32%) in the trial compared to their early- (22%) and mid-career (19%) colleagues and significantly higher acceptance rates for last authors based in North America (29.2%) and Europe (18.1%) compared to last authors based in Asia (11.9%). Trial submissions took significantly longer to be accepted (median = 187 days, IQR = 130.5-235.5) compared to the regular process (median = 138 days, IQR =114-170).

Comparison of two types of collaborative peer review at eLife

This is an inperson poster session. If you are attending virtually please visit the individual poster pages and ask your questions in the chat box.

PS2 - Editorial and Peer Review Process

poster

Our aim is to encourage research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication, to establish the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research.
 
 **Welcome!**
 
 The JAMA Network, The BMJ, and METRICS welcome you to the Ninth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. We have continued our efforts to broaden the scope of the Congress to all aspects of peer review and publication—from funding to postpublication—and to all sciences.
 
 We will have 3 days for presentations of new research into peer review and all aspects of scientific publication, bias, quality of reporting, and information access and dissemination. There are 50 plenary session research presentations and 5 plenary invited talks. Each plenary session research presentation will be followed by equal time for discussion and questions from the audience. In addition, there are 125 posters. All posters, including virtual posters, are available to view throughout the meeting. In-person posters will also be presented at designated times on September 9 and 10. If you are attending virtually, please visit the individual poster pages and ask your questions in the chat box. See the link to Posters on the left.
 
 We hope you will take an active part in the program, as we depend on your participation in the discussion sessions to make the Congress a success.

 [Peer Review Congress Organizers, Directors, and Advisory Board](https://peerreviewcongress.org/organizers-and-advisory-board/)
 
 [Health and Safety Policies](https://web.cvent.com/event/1b505794-6a0b-428c-a44c-6c46c4c50e99/websitePage:152962bb-4567-4561-9d81-21ebfa97f487)

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/7c9f0143dee383780cc4670269ade132.png)

A PDF of the schedule is available [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Jd191W-nxbWcN1prdX5o9nlSfeo9_-H/view?usp=sharing) and a flipbook version of the complete program and abstracts is included below. See also the link to the interactive schedule to the left.

<iframe width="700px" height="425px" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/nlfn/#p=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allowtransparency></iframe>

Registration is required to attend this event, please use the URL linked below to secure your ticket. Registration will close on Friday, September 2 at 5:00 PM CT. 

[**Register Here**]( https://web.cvent.com/event/1b505794-6a0b-428c-a44c-6c46c4c50e99/summary)

Peer Review Congress 2022

Our aim is to encourage research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication, to establish the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research.



**Chair:** Bahar Mehmani, Elsevier

1. Peer review procedures & trials

technical paper

Following the success of the 1st PEERE International Conference on Peer Review, the PEERE COST Action follow-up community organised the second edition of the PEERE International Conference on Peer Review  and was celebrated virtually on 29 September – 1 October 2020.

The conference welcomed any contribution (e.g., original research, position papers, literature reviews) that used any method (e.g., quantitative, experimental or qualitative) to investigate peer review in a variety of scientific domains (e.g., scholarly journals, funding agencies, research assessment). Interdisciplinary research is especially welcome.

The program is published here: http://tiny.cc/peere2020 


PEERE

The second edition of the PEERE International Conference on Peer Review aims to provide a forum for scholars, practitioners and science stakeholders to share research, models, tools and experience on peer review in different fields, e.g., medicine, computer science, social sciences and humanities. It aims to stimulate the use of evidence-based research in the design and implementation of peer review in a variety of fields and encourage more systematic research.

Emma Smith

2

SHORT BIO

Presentations

Results From a Preprint Review Opt-in Review Process at eLife

Comparison of two types of collaborative peer review at eLife

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES