An initiative encouraging peer reviewers to publish their reviews alongside the preprint of an article

Workflow for publish your reviews. After getting an invitation to review (1) & writing your review (2), publish review alongside preprint (3) and add journal recommendation and submit review to journal (4)

Why? | Sign the pledge | Resources | How to publish reviews | Signatories | Supporters | Example reviews | About

繁體中文 | زبان فارسی | Deutsch | Español | Français | Português

Why Publish Your Reviews?

Back to top

Icon with eye on top of preprint

Provide readers with additional context on preprints, pointing out strengths, weaknesses, and unanswered questions.

recycling sign around review

Enable reuse of peer reviews, thereby reducing burden on editors and reviewers.

group of people with light bulb above them

Bring discussions into the public domain, where readers can enrich the conversation with diverse expertise.

Surface the work of reviewers to a broader audience, promoting greater recognition for this important work.

Catalyze a culture of open commenting on preprints by surfacing hidden conversation.

Why others signed

Back to top

Serhii Nazarovets
Researcher, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University

Not all young researchers are lucky enough to immediately start working in a strong academic community with excellent researcher traditions. Young scientists, especially from developing countries, often first have to learn to avoid many obstacles, such as predatory journals or “zombie science,” in order to finally touch the high-quality peer review. This initiative tears away this veil of mystery from peer review, and therefore I believe that it will enable many researchers to improve their academic writing and peer review skills, regardless of where they start their research career.

Gabriele Marinello
CEO, Qeios

Peer reviewing is foundational science work, and very hard work. Why keep it behind the scenes? Opening it up is such a huge service to science, scientists, and the world.

James Fraser
Professor, UCSF

As we continue to make science more open, exposing the process of iteratively improving manuscripts through peer review is more important than ever. Writing constructive peer reviews takes time and effort – and should also be recognized as a scholarly output. Increasing transparency in peer review is timely and exciting

Prachee Avasthi
Co-Founder, Chief Scientific Advisor, Incoming CSO, Arcadia Science

The scientific literature is expanding rapidly. A sustainable, scalable ecosystem involves a broader range of scientists in making research more rigorous and this is best done in ways that minimize wasted effort. At Arcadia Science, to make our contributions to review maximally reusable by authors and useful to readers, we ask our scientists to comment publicly on preprints.

Randy Schekman
Professor and Investigator, University of California, Berkeley and Howard Hughes Medical Institute

As a community of scholars, we each take responsibility to provide critical but fair comment on manuscripts submitted for publication in the journals that represent our research disciplines. We do so on a voluntary basis which for some represents a significant investment of time and effort. I have long felt that this effort should be recognized in a formal way as a valued contribution to the literature with a measure equivalent to that of a published citation. The “Publish your Reviews” initiative offers just such a measure of credit. Most publishers and many authors have embraced pre-print posting on an archive. Similarly, the transparency of the review process will be enhanced by wide adoption of published reviews.

Gary McDowell
Consultant, Lightoller LLC

I’m keen to see more transparency around peer review, particularly around who is allowed to participate and how research observations are converted into scholarly communications. Sharing our reviews on works in progress allows greater accountability about the process, and allows others to share the insights that scientists share with each other in the process of developing knowledge.

Alex Bisson
Assistant Professor, Brandeis University

I believe the confrontation of ideas is the most important aspect of scientific research. Hiding evaluations and actors behind secretive journal processes kills the free exchange and foster a climate where exchange of expertise becomes conflicting to the advance of ECR careers. I believe that we should start seeing our reviews as a service to our colleagues instead of a gatekeeping mechanism for journals. By sharing my reviews of preprints, I expect to switch the balance from gatekeeper of a manuscript to a colleague interested in discussing and hopefully help to improve their science.

photo of Gracielle Higino
Gracielle Higino
Postdoctoral Research and Teaching Fellow, Canadian Institute of Ecology and Evolution

Early career researchers are naturally early adopters of revolutions in the academic culture. Yet, we often don’t have the structure (funds, material, leadership, training) to actually practice what we think is good for science, such as reproducibility, pre-registration or open peer review. I signed the Publish Your Reviews pledge because I am an adopter of preprints and preprint reviews myself, and I think we need to encourage preprint reviews more than ever, as we see a rise in publication and use of preprints. I want to be a piece of the infrastructure that benefits the next generation of ECRs, so they feel like they are contributing to a bigger movement when reviewing preprints.

Silvio Peroni
Silvio Peroni
Associate Professor, University of Bologna

We should publicly acknowledge the effort a researcher spends in reviewing and enable the reviewer to take public responsibility for the content of the review he/she writes to help the authors to improve their work. Research should be, indeed, an open and public dialogue and should not be constrained by established practices that go against Open Science principles. I think this initiative is one of the first attempts providing an international and inclusive forum to work towards a more transparent reviewing process.

Alizee Malnoe
Alizée Malnoë
Associate Professor, Umeå University

I chose to sign the pledge because reviews are part of the scientific process and should be freely available. Publish Your Reviews will both benefit readers by providing discussion around the findings and research context, and authors by promoting focused, appropriate, specific and transparent principles.

Mohammad Hosseini
Mohammad Hosseini
Postdoctoral Researcher, Northwestern University

Open publication of peer reviews supports adhering to important principles of good research such as openness and respect, improves giving due credit to peer reviewers for their contributions and encourages responsible review practices. By supporting the Publish Your Reviews pledge, early career researchers promote an ethical and transparent approach to peer reviews, and contribute to further improvement of this vital practice.

Sign the pledge

Back to top

What next?

Back to top

Signatories of Publish Your Reviews


Back to top

Journals and publishers

The following journals and publishers acknowledge that reviewers are welcome to publish their reviews alongside preprints, provided they do not include the journal name, a recommendation for publication, or other confidential information. 

GigaScience Press
Quantitative Science Studies

Other organizations

The following organizations encourage researchers to sign the Publish Your Reviews pledge and to publish their reviews, and encourage journals and publishers to support Publish Your Reviews.

Bill & Melinda Gates foundation
JMIR Preprints
Knowledge Futures Group
Research Square
Science Open

Indicate your organization’s support

Example reviews

About the initiative

Back to top



  • Serhii Nazarovets
  • Gabriele Marinello
  • Alizée Malnoë
  • Mohammad Hosseini
  • Silvio Peroni
  • Gracielle Higino
  • Alex Bisson
  • Gary McDowell
  • Randy Schekman
  • Prachee Avasthi
  • James Fraser


We thank Cooper Smout (Free Our Knowledge), Iratxe Puebla (ASAPbio), and ASAPbio fellows Bianca Trovò, Nicolás Hinrichs, Saeed Shafiei Sabet, and Susana Henriques. Thanks to Iratxe Puebla, Xavier Lastra, André Brasil, Carey Ming-Li Chen, Zohreh Zahedi, Anestis Amanatidis, and Jonathan Dudek for translations.

Further reading