Abstract
The dissemination of scientific results and new technologies in biomedical science is rapidly evolving from an exclusive and fee-oriented publishing system towards more open, free and independent strategies for sharing knowledge. In this context, preprint servers such as bioRxiv answer a very real scientific need by enabling the rapid, free and easy dissemination of findings, regardless of whether these are novel, replicated, or even showcasing negative results. Currently, thousands of manuscripts are being shared via bioRxiv each month, and neuroscience is the largest and fastest growing subject category. However, commenting on bioRxiv is declining and no structured scientific validation such as peer-review is currently available. The Peer Community In (PCI) platform addresses this unmet need by facilitating the rigorous evaluation and validation of preprints, and PCI Circuit Neuroscience (PCI C Neuro) aims to develop and extend this tool for the neuroscience community. Here we discuss PCI C Neuro’s mission, how it works, and why it is an essential initiative in this new era of open science.
Highlights
Preprints are early versions of scientific manuscripts, preceding peer-review and final publication in journals
A survey conducted by ASAPbio in 2016 found that 68% of 392 participants agreed that commentary, or some form of evaluation or rating system for biology preprints would be valuable for the community (Figure 1B) [8]
This symbiotic relationship is already in place for other Peer Community In (PCI) platforms and a number of journals, and we look forward to building our own collaborations within the field of neuroscience, starting with Neuroanatomy and Behaviour
Summary
Preprints are early versions of scientific manuscripts, preceding peer-review and final publication in journals. Preprints typically undergo no such assessment, making it difficult for readers to distinguish those manuscripts which are scientifically sound from those that are not, and for authors to demonstrate the quality of their work (i.e. for job interviews and grant applications) While it is unclear what is inhibiting commenting on bioRxiv’s native comment field, the need for systematic scientific commentary and validation is becoming more recognised and new platforms for preprint peerreview and feedback are beginning to appear and gain traction. Many of these initiatives are listed on ASAPbio’s new Reimagine Review site, where their principal functions are neatly categorized into three domains: (1) curation of interesting work, (2) validation of soundness, and (3) feedback to authors. It is already well established in a number of fields, notably evolutionary biology and ecology, but no such platform currently exists for the neuroscience community, despite its huge potential benefit
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
