PRE-val is a service that independently validates peer review processes for scholarly journals. It provides a badge that journals can display to signal that a given article has undergone quality peer review. PRE-val aims to increase transparency and trust in peer review by answering whether an article has truly been peer reviewed and providing information about the journal's review process. It was created due to increasing criticism of traditional peer review and problems like predatory publishers. PRE-val supports best practices in peer review to encourage high-quality review.

1. November 2014
Securing Trust & Transparency
in Peer Review
Adam Etkin, Founder and Managing Director
http://www.pre-val.org
@PeerReviewEval

2. What is PRE-val?
A service that works with the publisher and journal to provide
independent validation of the review process
A badge that publishers can display in various places – search
results, article pages, article-level metrics – to signal to readers
that quality peer review has been conducted
A window into a given journal’s peer review process accessible by
end users
PRE-val answers the most basic, and important, question about
scholarly works: “Has this article really been peer reviewed?”
PRE-val supports quality peer review.
2

3. Why do we need PRE-val?
Traditional peer review & scholarly publishers
seem to be under constant criticism.
Emergence of “predatory” publishers
High-profile cases of faulty research being published
Difficulty distinguishing peer-reviewed research from
non-reviewed content in journals – publishing in a peer-reviewed
journal does not equate with peer review for
every article
“Publish then filter” and “Publishing is a button” attitude
3

4. Why do we need PRE-val?
4

5. Why do we need PRE-val?
Surveys show peer review is valued by researchers & authors.
“The qualitative data also point to the fact that
peer review is the central pillar of trust.”
University of Tennessee and CIBER Research Ltd, December 2013
Sources: Sense About Science; Taylor & Francis; CIBER Research; NPG/Palgrave Macmillan Author Insights survey
5
Most (69%) researchers are satisfied
with the current system of peer
review but only a third think that the
current system is the best we can do
Most (84%) believe that without
peer review there would be no
control in scientific communication
78% of OA authors
prefer traditional,
rigorous peer review
Only 20% want basic
check followed by post-publication
review
Almost all researchers (91%) believe
that their last paper was improved
as a result of peer review
While many want a faster process with
fewer rounds, the overwhelming majority
(~70%) prefer to wait for thorough review
93% of science authors
consider quality of PEER
REVIEW when deciding
where to publish

6. Less time to review more information
6
Total Peer Reviewed Journals
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
*B.-C. Björk, R. Annikki, and M. Lauri. Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via
different Open Access options
*The National Science Board estimates the average annual growth of the indexes within the Web of Science to be 2.5%
(See: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, chapter 5, page 29)
*The stm report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing (2009)
*http://dan.corlan.net/cgi-bin/medline-trend?Q=
Journals
28,000+ journals, and growing
Total Peer Reviewed Articles Published
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Articles
2 million articles in 2013
More information than ever, less time to sort through it all.

7. Not just one “right” approach
Peer review is not one thing, and
it cannot be assumed.
The number of varied approaches to peer review is
increasing, yet readers often assume it is a uniform practice
Journals with high standards have no clear way of routinely
showing these standards at the article level
Trends toward “lite” peer review & critics are dominating the
discussion, while quality has a harder time finding a voice
This leads to confusion and questions about trust . . .
7

8. Measurements Abound

9. A Lesson From The Car Industry
Metrics/Filters = Knowledge = Power
Looking for a new car?
• MPG
• Size
• Speed
• Features
• Safety
• Cost
Evaluating a journal?
• Impact Factor
• Audience
• Speed
• Altmetrics
• Peer Review (PRE)
• Cost

10. 10
Community
Different approaches, different services….one goal:
Working together to educate and support

11. We believe in peer review
PRE-val creates incentives
to use best practices in peer review.
Recognizes journals with an editor-in-chief or other
overseeing editor
PRE-val encourages journals to use quality reviewers
Provides transparency into iteration through review to
improve the science and clarity of a paper
Helps promote use of best practices, which are markers of
commitment to better peer review approaches
11

12. Technical flow – Low/No work by publisher
12
First, we sit down together to learn about your
process. PRE-val configuration takes into account
your unique processes and preferences related to
what you want to make public/transparent.
<metadata>PEER REVIEW</metadata>
Publisher Manuscript Submission/
Peer Review Tracking System
PRE API
#1
Low/no development work
on part of publisher or
manuscript submission/
peer review system
Publisher places badge on
- Journal article page
- Search results
- Aggregator sites
- Article metrics
- anywhere else a signal of
peer review is important

14. Info about peer
review process:
• Type of Review
• Rounds of review
• Roles participating
Other measures of
screening quality:
• COPE member?
• Plagiarism
screening?
• Retraction policy?
Optional info:
• Reviewer
comments
• Reviewer names
14

15. November 2014
Securing Trust & Transparency
in Peer Review
Adam Etkin, Founder and Managing Director
http://www.pre-val.org
@PeerReviewEval