{% load staticfiles %} {% include 'scipost/header.html' %} {% include 'scipost/navbar.html' %}

SciPost's Peer Review Method: Peer-Witnessed Refereeing.

Shortcomings of traditional refereeing

The traditional approach to refereeing is sub-optimal for a number of reasons: the choice of referees is exclusive to Journal editors; only up to a handful of referees are consulted; the best potential referees are not necessarily chosen; one cannot, as a specialist, volunteer to report on a paper (manuscript shortcomings are thus very often not flagged before publication); closed-door refereeing, with reports viewable only by editors and authors, is not fully accountable (referee reports are thus often of low quality); refereeing work is not credited (the quality of reports thus further suffers from a lack of incentive).


Principles of SciPost's Peer-Witnessed Refereeing

Reporting

Ratings

Contributors thus have additional incentives to provide not only high-quality Submissions, but also Reports and Comments of the highest achievable professional caliber.

Abusive behaviour is prevented by Editorial vetting of all Reports, Replies and Comments before public posting.

Contributors are incentivized to actively participate in the SciPost refereeing and commenting process by having their aggregated statistics publicly available (this information eventually belonging on a Contributor's CV).

{% include 'scipost/footer.html' %}