- An evidenced comparison of routes and local recognition.
- A response matrix and version log.
- Accurate publication-status and access statements.
Identify the output first
A preprint, review report, recommendation and journal article are different outputs. Ask the relevant institution or funder which output and version count for your purpose. Do not infer indexing or institutional recognition from a platform name.
Compare audience, subject scope, preprint rules, current fees, licence, conflicts and review status. Read the current terms of the specific PCI community and intended journal.
What PCI changes
A Peer Community In community may review and recommend a preprint; a recommendation is not automatically journal publication. Assess possible subsequent publication in Peer Community Journal or another journal separately.
A team seeking public feedback first needs a stable preprint, shareable supporting material and responses to criticism. Before a later submission, check the journal’s rules on prior review and simultaneous consideration.
Read the eLife model accurately
In the current eLife model, editors select submissions before peer review. Work entering that process is published as a Reviewed Preprint with public assessment and reviews, with revision and an optional Version of Record route. This does not mean every submission is reviewed.
The assessment discusses evidential strength and significance. A single accept/reject label cannot describe every stage. Record the actual version, date, DOI and status in a CV or thesis.
A practical response to review
Hypothetical criticism: “The low-quality exclusion rule is unclear.” Teaching response: “We had not defined the rule before examining outcomes; this limitation is now explicit in Methods. Table S2 shows counts under each rule, and a sensitivity analysis compares all defensible rules.”
Track the comment, your interpretation, action, location and unresolved disagreement. Do not present a post hoc decision as preregistered. Explain why an inappropriate or consent-incompatible request cannot be met and propose a defensible alternative.
Versions and public responsibility
Review and response files may remain public. Exclude confidential or identifying participant information. Disclose contributions, assistance and conflicts under the outlet’s policy.
Keep a traceable version log, links to reviews and the important methodological or result changes. Do not silently describe an older version as the updated one.
Completed teaching worksheet
This is a hypothetical teaching case, not observed data, an actual review or a publication acceptance. Numbers illustrate decisions.
| Decision or record | Teaching example | Your project action |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Public feedback before choosing a journal | Check institutional recognition. |
| PCI output | Recommendation on a preprint | Distinguish it from journal publication. |
| eLife output | Reviewed Preprint after selection and review | Record actual status and version. |
| Response | Exclusion-rule table and sensitivity analysis | Identify every change location. |
| Next outlet | Licence and prior-review policy | Check the subsequent outlet’s rules. |
Deliverables and completion checks
- An evidenced comparison of routes and local recognition.
- A response matrix and version log.
- Accurate publication-status and access statements.
Version and scope references: Peer Community In — Preprint review and recommendation · eLife — Peer review and publishing
Sources and further reading
Official sources for verification and further reading
- Peer Community In — Preprint review and recommendation Source verification: 2026-10-06
- eLife — Peer review and publishing Source verification: 2026-10-06
- ICMJE — Roles of authors and contributors