We’ve recently replaced Rapid PREreviews with Structured PREreviews.
You can write a Structured PREreview now.
We’ll be updating older Rapid PREreviews like these soon.
| Question | Yes | Unsure | N/A | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are the findings novel? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the results likely to lead to future research? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study? | 50% | 0% | 50% | 0% |
| Are the methods and statistics appropriate for the analysis? | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Are the principal conclusions supported by the data and analysis? | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript discuss limitations? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Have the authors adequately discussed ethical concerns? | 50% | 0% | 50% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript include new data? | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Are the data used in the manuscript available? | 50% | 0% | 50% | 0% |
| Is the code used in the manuscript available? | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Would you recommend this manuscript to others? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Summary of the work:
In this work authors have provided a list of principles for a better preprint feedback system, which not just include the author, reviewer or journals rather everyone in a scientific/non scientific community. The problem they asses here is the flooding of preprints in the…
This manuscript provides guiding principles for addressing cultural barriers to participation in preprint peer review, clustering these principles around the four themes of Focused, Appropriate, Specific and Transparent (FAST) reviews. The principles are described and the relevant actors…