The Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model

Introduction to Publish-Review-Curate (PRC)

The Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model has emerged as an innovative response to the limitations of traditional scholarly publishing. Critics of the traditional model highlight issues such as slow dissemination, lack of transparency, inefficiency, and centralization of decision-making within a small group of editors and peer reviewers. These challenges have stifled diversity and innovation in the evaluation of research, while consuming significant resources with minimal impact on improving research quality.

The PRC model addresses these shortcomings by dividing the scholarly communication process into three distinct phases: Publish, Review, and Curate. This structure enables rapid dissemination, transparent evaluation, and a focus on the scientific quality of research articles rather than the prestige of the journals in which they are published. By decentralizing control and placing researchers at the forefront of the publication process, the model fosters greater inclusivity.

The Diamond Open Access ecosystem supports sustainable and inclusive publishing models, and the PRC approach is a key example. It operates effectively in low-resource environments, offering a viable alternative to traditional publishing. The model's flexibility allows it to support various editorial workflows, peer review methods, and research outputs. As more stakeholders embrace and refine it, the model could become a leading standard in global scientific communication.

The model is gaining traction across the scholarly landscape, with platforms and journals such as eLife, Peer Community In, JMIRx, and PREreview, among others, embracing this approach. Funders, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, are also actively supporting PRC initiatives by providing financial backing and policy changes to incentivize adoption.

The PRC model emphasizes:

1. Publish: Researchers take control of the decision to publish their work as preprints, ensuring their work is openly available and discoverable.

2. Review: Reviewers evaluate preprints, addressing their strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement. The review reports are made openly available, posted alongside the preprint, ensuring transparency and accountability in the evaluation process.

3. Curate: Reviewed preprints are compiled into thematic collections, often accompanied by editorial assessments or judgments.

The Publish Phase in PRC

The publish phase in the PRC model empowers researchers to make their work publicly accessible, bypassing traditional journal gatekeeping. Research outputs are assigned persistent identifiers like ARK or DOI upon publication and made open access with clear metadata for discoverability and reuse which aligns with the FAIR priniciples. This phase promotes rapid dissemination, enhances visibility, and supports open science principles by ensuring research is accessible to a broader audience. The phase also ensures that shared work is freely available under open licenses, such as CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution), promoting unrestricted access. Researchers can share their manuscripts through open-access repositories like BAOBAB or preprint servers such as bioRxiv, medRxiv, and other servers that fits their area of study allowing for decentralized dissemination. 

The Review Phase in PRC

The review phase in the PRC model involves openly evaluating research outputs to provide constructive and actionable feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Unlike traditional peer review, where reviews are often hidden, the PRC model emphasizes transparency and accessibility. Reviews are openly available, assigned persistent identifiers, and remain associated with the research output (e.g., preprints).

The Curation Phase in PRC

The curation phase involves organizing reviewed preprints or other research outputs to enhance discoverability based on their perceived quality. It includes compiling reviewed preprints into thematic collections and applying quality assessments such as endorsements or ratings. Curation ensures that valuable research remains accessible to specific audiences. A key feature of the curation phase is that research outputs published under the PRC model can be curated by multiple entities simultaneously.

Image Source: Hyde, A., Pattinson, D., & Shannon, P. (2022). Designing for Emergent Workflow Cultures: eLife, PRC, and Kotahi. Commonplace. https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.ef6691ea

PublishNow is designed to support PRC

PublishNow is an innovative open review platform operated by WACREN that implements the PRC model by enabling researchers to engage in the open review of preprints (preprints with a DOI or ARK) and other scholarly outputs. With ORCID integration, reviewers’ identities can be disclosed, promoting accountability in the review process. Reviewers also have the option to provide anonymous reviews if they choose. PublishNow offers intuitive tools for assigning reviews, monitoring review progress, and curating reviewed preprints into collections. 

COPPHA has a special section on PublishNow which we will be using in the next two sections of the course.

An excellent resource is Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Model of ScholarlyCommunication 2024. Please take a look and comment on it in the discussion forum.

Exploring Two Models of PRC: A Comparison of eLife and Peer Community In (PCI) 

Two Models of PRC with Validation Proposed by Coalition S

Coalition S emphasizes that the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model cannot operate effectively in isolation. To ensure rigor and quality, they advocate for incorporating a validation step into the PRC workflow, based on peer reviews. By validation we mean that ideas and evidence expressed in the article have been accepted by the scholarly community. Coalition S in a publication on “Peer-reviewed preprints and the Publish-Review-Curate model”  proposes two approaches, both integrating this essential validation:

1. Publish-Review-Curate (Validation through Curation)

In this model, curation itself serves as the validation step, relying on peer reviews as the basis for this process. This approach mirrors the practices of some scientific journals today. For example Journals may publish peer-reviewed preprints and curate them further, leveraging reviews conducted by external services. Examples include PCI-friendly journals or journals associated with Review Commons, which integrate peer reviews from other services into their editorial and curatorial processes.

2. Publish-Review (Validation before Curation) - Curate

In this approach, validation is performed before curation through peer review and an explicit editorial decision, such as acceptance. Once validated, the article undergoes curation to enhance its value and impact. This approach is often reflected in the practices of traditional journals where validation precedes curation.

Why Coalition S Proposes Two Types of Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Models

The proposal by Coalition S for two distinct PRC models stems from the recognition that curation and validation, while interrelated, serve different purposes. 

Curation vs. Validation

• Curation Defined: Curation involves the classification, selection, and highlighting of reviewed articles based on their perceived quality or relevance. It often serves to guide readers toward noteworthy or impactful research. Curation is typically qualitative and positive, selecting articles for inclusion in collections based on their merits.

• Validation Defined: Validation is a more rigorous, binary decision-making process involving an accept/reject outcome based on peer review. It confirms that an article meets specific criteria for publication and scientific quality. Validation offers a clear signal to readers that the article has been evaluated and endorsed by a part of the scientific community.

• The Issue with Ambiguity in Curation and Validation: Without clear validation (accept/reject), curated articles might mislead readers into believing they have undergone a thorough peer-review process when they may not have. 

Comparing the Two PRC Models to eLife and PCI

The model is applied differently by organizations like eLife and Peer Community In (PCI), yet both share common elements, especially in how peer review and curation are integrated. Below is a breakdown of how these models work in practice and the differences between them:

1. eLife and the PRC Model

eLife's approach to the PRC model focuses on peer review and editorial assessment without a traditional accept/reject decision. 

Key Feature: eLife’s model removes the traditional accept/reject decision and instead highlights the feedback through qualitative editorial input and public reviews, providing transparency without a clear binary validation. You can learn more about eLife’s model here.

2. PCI and the PRC Model

In contrast, PCI follows a clear binary validation process, providing a definitive editorial decision: 

Key Feature: PCI’s model ensures clear validation of an article through its accept/reject decision, while curation follows once the article is accepted. The recommendation of an article is a positive editorial decision made by a recommender, based on at least two thorough peer reviews and following one or more rounds of review. You can learn more about the PCI model

Key Differences Between eLife and PCI

• eLife operates with a qualitative editorial process, not bound by a binary decision. Instead, it emphasizes public reviews and editorial feedback without a clear "accept" or "reject."

• PCI operates with a binary validation system, where a definitive editorial decision is made, followed by public recommendations once the article is accepted.