Comments
Abdelazim Negm
18 August, 2025It is an interesting article that opened the door to inform the scientific community on the emerging diverse approaches for more trustworthy and transparent review. Anyhow, none of the journals (at least those I reviewed for them) adopted any of the mentioned approaches, but they may be convinced to apply one or all of the presented methods.
Prof. Dr. Maan Abdul Azeez Shafeeq
19 August, 2025An excellent, interesting and transparent article. The peer review community is one of the effective scientific methods that must be followed with the availability of its infrastructure. It is one of the things that support the peer review community. We must make the connection between current and previous research, as well as knowing previous reviews of research and linking them with the peer review community, and it is considered one of the important and effective steps in this field.
Arash Pakravesh
19 August, 2025Thank you, Tony, for this insightful contribution. The movement toward open and community-driven peer review, as illustrated by platforms such as PREreview, Sciety, and Peer Community In, represents a significant paradigm shift in scholarly communication. By foregrounding transparency, inclusivity, and timeliness, these initiatives address long-standing challenges of traditional peer review, including opacity and limited participation. Particularly noteworthy is the way such models broaden the reviewer pool, amplifying diverse voices across disciplines and career stages. This evolution not only strengthens the rigor of scientific discourse but also reinforces accountability and trust within the academic community.
Dr Bello RS
20 August, 2025This is a well scripted and researched opinion from Tony Alves, on the credence and essence of community peer review. I subscribe to this and look forward to it's full adoption as the new phase in peer-review journey.
Laraib Chouhdary
21 August, 2025
Thank you for sharing the insightful post by Tony Alves. I found the discussion on community-led peer review very thought-provoking. In my view, community-driven models can play a valuable complementary role alongside traditional peer review. While journal-based evaluation ensures rigor and consistency, community platforms offer openness, diversity of perspectives, and faster feedback, which can strengthen transparency and trust in scholarly publishing. Moreover, it also shows what the common people who are literate think about the respective issues.
I believe a hybrid approach, where traditional peer review is supported by broader community engagement may be the most effective way forward. This would maintain quality standards while also encouraging inclusivity and collaboration in research evaluation.
21 August, 2025
Tony, thank you for this well-structured and forward-looking analysis. Your framing of community peer review as both a cultural and infrastructural shift is especially relevant for those of us working to streamline high-volume publishing workflows while maintaining rigor and inclusivity.
The interoperability enabled by COAR Notify, DocMaps, and MECA is not just technically impressive—it’s foundational for reducing redundancy and accelerating manuscript evaluation. These tools support a more efficient scholarly ecosystem, where reviews can travel with manuscripts and contribute meaningfully across platforms.
I also appreciate your emphasis on reviewer diversity and training. Initiatives like PREreview’s Open Reviewers and ASAPbio’s Crowd Preprint Review are essential for building capacity among early-career researchers and expanding the global reviewer pool. This aligns well with mentoring goals and helps embed evaluation literacy into research development.
Community peer review, as you’ve described, is not a replacement for editorial oversight but a complementary layer that enhances transparency, accountability, and trust. It’s encouraging to see traditional journals experimenting with hybrid models that integrate community feedback.
This article makes a meaningful contribution to the ongoing dialogue about research integrity and evaluation reform. I look forward to seeing how these infrastructures evolve and how we, as a scholarly community, can continue to support their adoption.
Dr Victor Ezebuiro
21 August, 2025I particularly like the idea of "dispersing review authority across a diverse and inclusive web of reviewers". I believe that community review would offer transparency but how it would manage such number of reviewers at the same time could be challenging.
Balakrishnan Padmanaban
21 August, 2025The new initiative ,community peer review is need of the hour ! It will improve the outcomes , can minimize the publication of incomplete work and will be highly useful.
Prof. Victor Enemor
22 August, 2025Very good presentation for improvement in the review process. Kudos to Mr. Tony Alves. Applications of the proposals will further prove the usefulness of the recommendations.
HIN LYHOUR
22 August, 2025The topic is quite impressive and new to me. I strongly agree with Tony's ideas that the reviewer names and review comments should be displayed publicly to improve transparency. This way, the quality of the manuscripts intended for publication can be better assessed. I will share this concept with the publishing community in my country. Many thanks!
Atifa Latif
22 August, 2025
A well proposed and researched thinking steps by Tony Alves, I looked here, on the true marvelous of community peer review. It will definitely improve the community peer review output. I support it and look forward to it's full adoption as the new phase in peer-review journey.
sami ali metwally
22 August, 2025Thank you for sharing the thoughtful post by Mr. Tony Alves. In my view, community peer review cannot fully replace the traditional model but can significantly complement it. By adding transparency, inclusiveness, and faster feedback, it creates a hybrid approach that may represent the most balanced and trustworthy future for research evaluation.
David Mark Dror, PhD, DBA
26 August, 2025
The idea of an alternative to journal-managed peer review responds to a very real need. Traditional journals, often inadvertently, have turned peer review into one of the most thankless parts of the publication process: excessively slow, opaque, and prone to bias. If community peer review can truly reduce these delays and mitigate bias, then KUDOS AND THANKS to those promoting it.
That said, another major obstacle remains, especially for young and aspiring authors: editorial rejections “up front,” which have now become the foremost hurdle to publication in most Q1 and Q2 journals. Hopefully, the promoters of community peer review will also devise solutions to this second barrier, making the system not only faster and more inclusive but also fairer for emerging scholars.
Dr. Sami Farhan
18 August, 2025Community peer review isn't just an alternative, it's shaping the future of how science is trusted and shared.