Logo image
Back
Integrating community Live Reviews into academic publishing: an exploratory study
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Integrating community Live Reviews into academic publishing: an exploratory study

Christopher I. Petkov, Vanessa Fairhurst, Monica Granados, Yogita Chudasama, Gail Rodney, Syeda A. Jabeen, Stephen David, Anna S. Mitchell, P. Christiaan Klink, Bahar Mehmani, …
Research integrity and peer review, Vol.11(1), 21
06/21/2026
DOI: 10.1186/s41073-026-00210-5
PMCID: PMC13283327
PMID: 42323688
url
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00210-5View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Background Academic peer review is fundamental for scientific knowledge dissemination, and various initiatives are exploring how the peer review process could be more open, efficient and rewarding. We report an exploratory study where a live community-based review approach was integrated into the editorial workflow of an academic journal ( Current Research in Neurobiology ; CRNEUR). Methods This study was conducted with five manuscripts (‘cases’) submitted as preprints, which underwent Live Review—a structured collaborative review session led by PREreview, an organization with the mission to advance equity and openness in scholarly evaluation. With each case, PREreview team members facilitated a 90-min online discussion where registered participants provided real-time discussion and worked together on the online structured peer review document. Authors could join as observers or to answer questions. Participants then volunteered to write up the session notes into a final review and summary statement. Review participants had the option to sign the review. The finalized review was then published on PREreview’s open preprint review platform approximately two weeks after the Live Review session, and it was assigned a CC BY 4.0 license and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) linked to the DOI of the reviewed preprint allowing reviewers to be recognized for their contribution. The published review was then incorporated into CRNEUR’s editorial workflow to inform editorial decisions and manuscript outcomes. Results We quantified the speed to first and final editorial decision of the community review ( n  = 5) in comparison to a larger sample ( n  = 27) of articles that went through a standard review process at CRNEUR during the same timeframe. First decision times in days after manuscript submission of the Live Reviews were within the Inter Quartile Range (IQR) of the standard review process (community review: median = 75, IQR: 41.3; standard review: median 92, IQR: 41.5), as were final decision times (community review: median 138, IQR: 22.5; standard review: median 211, IQR: 166.0). A survey of the Live Review attendees ( n  = 13; 30% response rate) on a scale of 1 ‘Highly Disagree’ to 5 ‘Highly Agree’ showed median ‘Agree’ to ‘Highly Agree’ scores on several questions including the review being respectful, time efficient and scientifically rigorous (median scores: 5, 4, 4, respectively). Conclusions The innovative Live Review approach was as efficient as the standard review process in the journal and was rated positively by those surveyed. The small sample size inherent to exploratory studies limits conclusions generalizing to larger sample sizes. We discuss how live, community-based review approaches could be further developed, scaled and sustained.
 Bioethics Education Ethics Medical Education Philosophy Science Education Humanities and Social Sciences multidisciplinary Research Ethics Science

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
Logo image