Rethinking Peer Review with Preprints
This week, we’re taking a closer look at how preprints are reshaping research communication, particularly through emerging models like Publish–Review–Curate (PRC). Preprints have already changed the pace of science by enabling immediate, open sharing of research outputs. Instead of waiting months for journal publication, researchers can disseminate findings quickly, invite feedback, and establish priority – all while making their work accessible to a wider audience. Building on this, the PRC model proposes a shift in how we think about peer review. Rather than acting as a gatekeeping step before publication, review becomes a transparent, ongoing process layered onto preprints. Articles are first shared openly, then evaluated, reviewed, and curated by communities, platforms, or organisations. The focus moves from “should this be published?” to “how should this work be assessed and contextualized?” This approach brings clear advantages. It increases transparency in peer review, allows multiple perspectives to emerge over time, and supports more nuanced evaluation than a single journal decision. It can also reduce duplication of effort by decoupling dissemination from assessment. At the same time, challenges remain. Preprints (whether formally reviewed or not) require readers to engage more critically with the work, as signals of quality may be more distributed and less familiar than traditional journal branding. Questions also persist around incentives, recognition, and how curated assessments are integrated into research evaluation systems. The shift toward preprints and PRC doesn’t eliminate peer review – it reimagines it as a more open, continuous, and community-driven process. How do you see preprints shaping the future of peer review? Drop us an email with your thoughts: open@oxcin.ox.ac.uk
By Teresa Simoes Steyn