Read on Twitter
I understand the concern - in a world where scientists are judged on the basis of journal citations, anything that might interfere with getting one is scary. But these concerns should be addressed at journals, not at @biorxivpreprint or overlay journals being created around it. https://twitter.com/RalserLab/status/1340284808224792578
We made a decision @eLife not to do unsolicited reviews because we view what we do as in large part a collaboration with the authors to improve their work. And we let authors control when their reviews get posted so they don't worry they'll interfere w/publishing their paper.
But at same time, we see the presence of reviews published by others as augmenting, not interfering w/ this process. We'll give authors a chance to respond & have great confidence that our editors can integrate this information into the review process fairly and conscientiously.
We already routinely evaluate papers based on reviews from other journals, with the full knowledge that we're seeing these reviews because the paper was rejected. And yet we publish many of these papers because we listed to the authors' response and make our own decisions.
It's also not uncommon for us to publish a paper even if one of our chosen reviewers is highly critical of the work, because sometimes the other reviewers and/or editor do not agree. So it's not like we just see a negative review and run away.
It's not that I don't think some unsolicited reviews will sometimes lead some journals to reject papers that they would have otherwise published.
Sometimes this will be because the unsolicited reviewer raised important issues that the authors couldn't adequately address. And while authors might not like this, it's hard to argue science isn't made better as a result.
But if a journal starts to reject papers simply because there are negative reviews online, then isn't the problem with the journal & not with preprints and overlays? Shouldn't we be putting pressure on journals not to do this rather than trying to kill overlays in their infancy?
I do think there are real and serious challenges here - my biggest fear is that people will secretly solicit highly positive "unsolicited" reviews - and we need to closely follow what happens, address any issues quickly and make sure the system treats people fairly.
But I strongly believe preprints and overlays are good for scientists and science if done right, and we need to focus on making sure they are done right rather.
