Peer Community In and Peer Community Journal: a two-step diamond OA process giving research communities back control of publishing

Barbara Class; Denis Bourguet; Thomas Guillemaud

doi:10.1629/uksg.744

Peer Community In and Peer Community Journal: a two-step diamond OA process giving research communities back control of publishing

Insights

Volume 39 (2026): Issue 0

By: Barbara Class , Denis Bourguet and Thomas Guillemaud

Open Access

|Jun 2026

Aczel, B., Barwich, A.‑S., Diekman, A. B., Fishbach, A., Goldstone, R. L., Gomez, P., Gundersen, O. E., von Hippel, P. T., Holcombe, A. O., Lewandowsky, S., Nozari, N., Pestilli, F., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2025). The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(5), e2401232121. 10.1073/pnas.2401232121 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion‑dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 14. 10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Allen, C., & Mehler, D. M. A. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology, 17(5), e3000246. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baccini, A., & Re, C. (2025). Who are the gatekeepers of economics? Geographic diversity, gender composition, and interlocking editorship of journal boards. Review of Political Economy, 37(2), 681–708. 10.1080/09538259.2024.2303654 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. 10.1038/533452a (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bartoš, F., Maier, M., Wagenmakers, E.‑J., Nippold, F., Doucouliagos, H., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Otte, W. M., Sladekova, M., Deresssa, T. K., Bruns, S. B., Fanelli, D., & Stanley, T. D. (2024). Footprint of publication selection bias on meta‑analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(3), 500–511. 10.1002/jrsm.1703 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bausell, R. B. (2021). The problem with science: The reproducibility crisis and what to do about it. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197536537.001.0001 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533. 10.1038/483531a (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Björk, B.‑C. (2018). Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals. Online Information Review, 45(2), 270–277. 10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0151 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Björk, B.‑C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer‑reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923. 10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bourguet, D., & Guillemaud, T. (2024, October 28). Peer‑reviewed preprints and the Publish‑Review‑Curate model | Plan S. sOApbox. https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/peer-reviewed-preprints-and-the-publish-review-curate-model/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Butler, L.‑A. (2023). Funding the business of open access: A bibliometric analysis of article processing charges, research funding, and the revenues of the oligopoly of publishers [Thesis]. Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa. 10.20381/ruor-28896 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 49(3), 609–610. 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chambers, C. D., & Tzavella, L. (2022). The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 29–42. 10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Culina, A., van den Berg, I., Evans, S., & Sánchez‑Tójar, A. (2020). Low availability of code in ecology: A call for urgent action. PLoS Biology, 18(7), e3000763. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000763 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dada, S., van Daalen, K. R., Barrios‑Ruiz, A., Wu, K.‑T., Desjardins, A., Bryce‑Alberti, M., Castro‑Varela, A., Khorsand, P., Zamorano, A. S., Jung, L., Malolos, G., Li, J., Vervoort, D., Hamilton, N. C., Patil, P., Omrani, O. E., Wangari, M.‑C., Sibanda, T., Buggy, C., & Mogo, E. R. I. (2022). Challenging the “old boys club” in academia: Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health. PLoS Global Public Health, 2(6), e0000541. 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000541 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goyanes, M., de‑Marcos, L., Demeter, M., Toth, T., & Jordá, B. (2022). Editorial board interlocking across the social sciences: Modelling the geographic, gender, and institutional representation within and between six academic fields. PLoS One, 17(9), e0273552. 10.1371/journal.pone.0273552 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haddaway, N. R., & Verhoeven, J. T. A. (2015). Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 5(19), 4451–4454. 10.1002/ece3.1722 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hales, A. H., Wesselmann, E. D., & Hilgard, J. (2019). Improving psychological science through transparency and openness: An overview. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 13–31. 10.1007/s40614-018-00186-8 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain on scientific publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 823–843. 10.1162/qss_a_00327 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hardwicke, T. E., & Vazire, S. (2024). Transparency is now the default at psychological science. Psychological Science, 35(7), 708–711. 10.1177/09567976231221573 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haustein, S., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., Hare, M., Butler, L.‑A., & Schönfelder, N. (2024). Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023 (No. arXiv:2407.16551). arXiv. 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16551 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2021). Is peer review a good idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635–663. 10.1093/bjps/axz029 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lakens, D., Mesquida, C., Rasti, S., & Ditroilo, M. (2024). The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports. Evidence‑Based Toxicology, 2(1), 2376046. 10.1080/2833373x.2024.2376046 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127502. 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ling OA. (2024). The fair open access principles. LingOA. https://www.lingoa.eu/about/mission/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meghreblian, B. (2025). Registered reports community feedback. https://registeredreports.cardiff.ac.uk/feedback/dashboards/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ni, R., & Waltman, L. (2024). To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(6), 749–766. 10.1002/asi.24880 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nissen, S. B., Magidson, T., Gross, K., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2016). Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife, 5, e21451. 10.7554/eLife.21451 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
O’Grady, K. (2021). Fifteen journals to outsource peer‑review decisions. Science Insider. https://www.science.org/content/article/fifteen-journals-outsource-peer-review-decisions (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCI. (2024a). PCI finances. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/pci-finances/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCI. (2024b, January 18). 2025 PCI’s finances and article costs. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/2024/01/18/2023-finances-article-costs/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCI. (2025a). How to create a new PCI. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/how-to-create-a-new-pci/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCI. (2025b). PCI webinar series. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/pci-webinar-series/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCI. (2025c). Sign the PCI manifesto. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/pci-manifesto/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCJ. (2025). Databases indexing Peer Community Journal. Peer Community Journal. https://peercommunityjournal.org/page/indexation/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
PCJ. (2026). Home. Peer Community Journal. https://peercommunityjournal.org/ (accessed 1 June 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pick, J. L., Allen, B., Bachelot, B., Bairos‑Novak, K. R., Brand, J. A., Class, B. A., Dallas, T., D’Amelio, P. B., Fenollosa, E., Fernández‑Juricic, E., Gomes, D. G. E., Grainger, M., Guillemaud, T., John, C., Krasnow, R., Lagisz, M., Lequime, S., Maynard, D., Nakagawa, S., … Ivimey‑Cook, E. R. (2025). The SORTEE guidelines for data and code quality control in ecology and evolutionary biology. https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/9948/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roche, D. G., Berberi, I., Dhane, F., Lauzon, F., Soeharjono, S., Dakin, R., & Binning, S. A. (2022). Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 289(1975), 20212780. 10.1098/rspb.2021.2780 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ross‑Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. 10.1093/reseval/rvae004 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rzayeva, N., Henriques, S. O., Pinfield, S., & Waltman, L. (2023). The experiences of COVID‑19 preprint authors: A survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic. PeerJ, 11, e15864. 10.7717/peerj.15864 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sarabipour, S., Debat, H. J., Emmott, E., Burgess, S. J., Schwessinger, B., & Hensel, Z. (2019). On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biology, 17(2), e3000151. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007467. 10.1177/25152459211007467 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple‑study articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551–566. 10.1037/a0029487 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schloss, P. D. (2018). Identifying and overcoming threats to reproducibility, replicability, robustness, and generalizability in microbiome research. mBio, 9(3), e00525‑18. 10.1128/mbio.00525-18 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sever, R. (2023). Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional. PLoS Biology, 21(10), e3002234. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002234 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shaw, D. M., & Elger, B. S. (2018). Unethical aspects of open access. Accountability in Research, 25(7–8), 409–416. 10.1080/08989621.2018.1537789 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stern, B. M., & O’Shea, E. K. (2019). A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biology, 17(2), e3000116. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
STM Association. (2024). OA dashboard 2024. https://stm-assoc.org/oa-dashboard/oa-dashboard-2024/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stodden, V., Seiler, J., & Ma, Z. (2018). An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2584–2589. 10.1073/pnas.1708290115 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., Raju, M., Astapova, A., Lukner, H., Kogermann, K., & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific Data, 8(1), 192. 10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
TSOSI. (2025). Transparency to sustain open science infrastructure. https://tsosi.org/ (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
UNESCO. (2021). Open science recommendation. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949?posInSet=3&queryId=4e9e5e25-46d0-428c-86ae-4191da67426c (accessed 18 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van ’t Veer, A. E., & Giner‑Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre‑registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12. 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Whitaker, K., & Guest, O. (2020). #bropenscience is broken science. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/bropenscience-broken-science (accessed 27 May 2026).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer‑review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One, 11(1), e0147913. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Youyou, W., Yang, Y., & Uzzi, B. (2023). A discipline‑wide investigation of the replicability of psychology papers over the past two decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6), e2208863120. 10.1073/pnas.2208863120 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zheng, X., Chen, J., Tollas, A., & Ni, C. (2023). The effectiveness of peer review in identifying issues leading to retractions. Journal of Informetrics, 17(3), 101423. 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101423 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zoccali, C., & Mallamaci, F. (2023). Reimagining peer review: The emergence of peer community in registered reports system. Journal of Nephrology, 36(9), 2407–2411. 10.1007/s40620-023-01709-6 (accessed 18 May 2026).
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.744 | Journal eISSN: 2048-7754

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 11 - 11

Submitted on: Oct 3, 2025

Accepted on: Nov 6, 2025

Published on: Jun 11, 2026

Published by: Ubiquity Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 3 issues per year

Keywords:

diamond open access,

publish-review-curate,

preprints,

journal

© 2026 Barbara Class, Denis Bourguet, Thomas Guillemaud, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 39 (2026): Issue 0