Submit a report


Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.



Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabularyuse asterix (*) to get italics
Tom E. Hardwicke, Sarah Schiavone, Beth Clarke, Simine VazirePlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>The journal eLife recently announced that it would abandon binary ‘accept/reject’ decisions and instead focus on sharing both peer review reports and short “eLife assessments” representing the consensus opinions of editors and peer reviewers. For consistency, eLife assessments will use phrases drawn from a common vocabulary to convey a study’s “significance” and “strength of support”. In our view, the chosen vocabulary, and their intended ordering, are counterintuitive, which may undermine communication with readers. In this study, we intend to empirically evaluate the psychometric properties of the eLife vocabulary and assess whether an alternative vocabulary has more desirable properties. Our goal is to make a constructive contribution towards a more transparent and informative peer review process at eLife and other journals.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
meta-research, peer review, journal policy, open science
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Life Sciences, Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-06-16 12:11:14
Sarahanne Miranda Field