Publish – Review – Curate
Publish – Review – Curate
This page is inspired by the ASAPbio explainer of the publish-review-curate model.
This page is inspired by the ASAPbio explainer of the publish-review-curate model.
What is publish-review-curate?
Critics of the traditional scholarly publishing model, adopted by most scientific journals, argue that it falls short in various ways. They assert that the model is too slow in disseminating research, lacks transparency, and relies on selection processes that often yield poor outcomes. Additionally, the model concentrates decision-making power within a small group of editors and peer reviewers, which limits the representation of diverse voices in the evaluation of new research results. The model is also seen as inefficient, allocating precious resources to lengthy peer review cycles that contribute little to improving research quality.
In response to the shortcomings of the traditional scholarly publishing model, the publish-review-curate model has gained traction. This model promotes rapid dissemination of new research results, transparent evaluation of scholarly work, and efficient use of resources. It organises the publishing process into three stages:
Publish
The publish phase allows researchers to control the decision of when and where to make their work public, typically through preprint servers or repositories. Unlike traditional journals, where editors and peer reviewers dictate publication, researchers can publish their work without any delay. Research outputs are openly accessible, persistently identified (e.g., via a DOI), and annotated with rich metadata.
Review
In the review phase, research outputs are openly evaluated. Review reports are scholarly contributions in their own right. They are openly accessible for future reference and have a persistent identifier and associated metadata. Peer reviewers may sign their reports or may remain anonymous. Review reports are indexed in scholarly literature databases, where they are linked to the research output they evaluate. The openness of review reports contrasts with traditional peer review, which is closed and lacks transparency.
Curate
The curation phase involves compiling research outputs into collections, often accompanied by editorial judgements or endorsements. Curation can take multiple forms, from simple lists of topically related works to complex quality assessments. It also allows for enhancements such as metadata additions, translations, or summaries, and can involve multiple curators working on the same output, offering diverse evaluations.
Publish
The publish phase allows researchers to control the decision of when and where to make their work public, typically through preprint servers or repositories. Unlike traditional journals, where editors and peer reviewers dictate publication, researchers can publish their work without any delay. Research outputs are openly accessible, persistently identified (e.g., via a DOI), and annotated with rich metadata.
Review
In the review phase, research outputs are openly evaluated. Review reports are scholarly contributions in their own right. They are openly accessible for future reference and have a persistent identifier and associated metadata. Peer reviewers may sign their reports or may remain anonymous. Review reports are indexed in scholarly literature databases, where they are linked to the research output they evaluate. The openness of review reports contrasts with traditional peer review, which is closed and lacks transparency.
Curate
The curation phase involves compiling research outputs into collections, often accompanied by editorial judgements or endorsements. Curation can take multiple forms, from simple lists of topically related works to complex quality assessments. It also allows for enhancements such as metadata additions, translations, or summaries, and can involve multiple curators working on the same output, offering diverse evaluations.
Features of publish-review-curate
The publish-review-curate model has several features that enhance the scholarly publishing process.
Decentralization
The publish-review-curate model enables publishing to be organised in a decentralised way. Unlike traditional journal publishing, where the entire process is managed by one entity, the publish-review-curate model allows responsibilities to be distributed across different services. For example, a preprint server may handle the publication of a work, a peer review platform may facilitate peer review, and an overlay journal may take care of curation. Decentralisation offers more flexibility in organising scholarly publishing.
Publication first
In traditional journal publishing, articles are reviewed and curated by journals before publication, typically through a closed non-transparent process. The publish-review-curate model prioritises publication first. Publication is then followed by a review and a curation stage. This approach accelerates sharing of new research results and allows for greater transparency and more collaboration.
Different flavours
The publish-review-curate model has many flavours. It can be fully decentralised, but it can also be organised in more integrated ways. Services may focus on a specific stage in the model, but they may also combine multiple stages, allowing for various different implementations of the model. Overlay journals can also play an important role in the publish-review-curate model, providing review and curation services for works already published on a preprint server.
Diamond approach
Diamond open access is an increasingly popular business model in which research outputs are both free to read and free to publish. The publish-review-curate model offers the flexibility to adopt a diamond approach in some stages of the model, but not necessarily in all stages. For example, preprint servers offer a diamond approach for the publication stage. Some services also offer diamond approaches for the review and curation stages, but there are also review and curation services that charge a fee to authors.
Views from the community
Adoption of the Publish > Review > Curate model is growing. Check out views from some relevant stakeholders about MetaROR’s contribution to alternative publication models.
Adoption of the Publish > Review > Curate model is growing. Check out views from some relevant stakeholders about MetaROR’s contribution to alternative publication models.
The Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) publication model embodies many key values of Open Science. It accelerates the dissemination of research results, allows authors to decide when they publish, and it promotes transparency by making the scholarly discussion between authors and reviewers available to all. Moreover, the public availability of peer review reports makes it possible to value and reward reviewers for their contributions. Robust, community-defined quality assurance processes help to ensure the trustworthiness of these outputs.
The metascience community studies how to reform and improve research practice. MetaROR demonstrates that reform begins at home. I am delighted to see innovations in scholarly communication being led by metascientists themselves.
MetaROR is one of a growing number of exciting new initiatives aimed at greatly improving the transparency and efficacy of research communications through preprint sharing and open peer review. As an international community looking to improve the current ecosystem through adoption of “open” practices and the “publish, review, curate” publishing model, COAR welcomes the launch of MetaROR and we look forward to working with this burgeoning community to help transform scholarly communications.
MetaROR is what the future of scholarly publishing will look like – journal-agnostic peer review coordinated by the community, conducted transparently. “Articles” will already be published on a preprint server, so the peer review process is all about evaluation and curation, rather than gatekeeping what is published. Moreover, authors can re-use the reviews they get from MetaROR at any journal that accepts them, increasing the efficiency of peer review in a world where reviewer time is more and more scarce.
The Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) publication model embodies many key values of Open Science. It accelerates the dissemination of research results, allows authors to decide when they publish, and it promotes transparency by making the scholarly discussion between authors and reviewers available to all. Moreover, the public availability of peer review reports makes it possible to value and reward reviewers for their contributions. Robust, community-defined quality assurance processes help to ensure the trustworthiness of these outputs.
The metascience community studies how to reform and improve research practice. MetaROR demonstrates that reform begins at home. I am delighted to see innovations in scholarly communication being led by metascientists themselves.
MetaROR is one of a growing number of exciting new initiatives aimed at greatly improving the transparency and efficacy of research communications through preprint sharing and open peer review. As an international community looking to improve the current ecosystem through adoption of “open” practices and the “publish, review, curate” publishing model, COAR welcomes the launch of MetaROR and we look forward to working with this burgeoning community to help transform scholarly communications.
MetaROR is what the future of scholarly publishing will look like – journal-agnostic peer review coordinated by the community, conducted transparently. “Articles” will already be published on a preprint server, so the peer review process is all about evaluation and curation, rather than gatekeeping what is published. Moreover, authors can re-use the reviews they get from MetaROR at any journal that accepts them, increasing the efficiency of peer review in a world where reviewer time is more and more scarce.
