Post-publication reviews by ReproducibiliTea journal clubs

Research progresses through feedback and evaluation, and transparent reviews are valuable to the research landscape!

By writing post-publication reviews or comments, journal clubs can learn together about peer review while engaging directly with other researchers. You can publish peer reviews online anonymously or with your name(s) using several different platforms. Writing your journal club discussion points online can contextualise research for other readers, provide input for authors to develop or correct their work, and give you credit for your expertise.

To sign up or hear more about the project, including funding opportunities, please fill out our form here.

Below are some guides and resources to get started.

ReproducibiliTeam developing this project: Ze Freeman (since 2026), Paulina Manduch (since 2024), Lianne Wolsink (since 2024).

How to review

Principles and examples for preprint reviews or comments: ASAPbio - Fast Principles

OSF

Early career researchers guide to reviewing: ECR Reviewers Platform

Example:

“This review was conducted by journal club members [at (name of the institution)]. We are giving feedback specifically on the methods and statistical analyses reported in this article. This study investigated…and reports findings of… We provide feedback to strengthen the [methodology/theoretical basis/results] and to [provide context/highlight future research/clarify]…”

What to review

• Articles that you are already discussing as part of your journal club
• Metaresearch articles, e.g., from our list of suggested review targets [link to the collated list]
• Preprints or published articles in an area where you have expertise or interest as a group

Where to post

• PREreview for preprints, for a DOI and recognition on your ORCID profile
• Comments section on a journal website, preprint server, or publishing platform (if available)
• PubPeer, for widest visibility and ease of use
• Zenodo, to gain a DOI
• Personal or journal club blog

Things to consider

• What is the level of expertise in your group? You can make this clear in your comment by stating that members are early career researchers, or by describing the areas of research that you work in.
• Would you prefer to be anonymous? Reviews on PREreview, PubPeer, and other platforms can be posted anonymously. It may be preferable to withhold your identity if you have concerns about being identified as the reviewer, but it does mean that you cannot receive credit for the work of reviewing.
• What is the scope of your review/comment? If you only review/comment on a specific aspect of the article or error that you find, remember to state that.
• Is your comment written in an appropriate tone? Is it respectful, constructive, and professional? Does it discuss the research in a non-speculative way, and align with the FAST principles?

Questions?

Send us an email at reproducibilitea@gmail.com – we would be happy to answer any questions you have.

ReproducibiliTea resources

See our blog post for more info about the project.

See the blog posts by ReproducibiliTea organisers on their experiences with post-publication reviewing: [blog post 1] [blog post 2] [blog post 3]

In October 2025, we organised two webinars on the topic of peer review and its diversification (see full programme). The video recordings are available on our YouTube channel.

Visit our app or OSF folder to explore related reading lists: peer review, post-publication reviewing and culture, error and error correction.

Other resources

Review templates

• Quantitative manuscript peer review template — http://mgto.org/peerreviewtemplate
• RRR Assessment Peer Review, Collaborative Template — https://mgto.org/rrrassessmentreviewtemplate
• Bekkers, R. (2020, May 2). How to review a paper - Including a checklist for hypothesis testing research reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7ug4w

Toolkits

• Toolkit on peer review by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) — https://ease.org.uk/communities/peer-review-committee/peer-review-toolkit/
• Equator Network - reporting guidelines for many study types — https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/
• Study Quality Assessment Tools — https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
• Vazire et al. (2022). Credibility beyond replicability: Improving the four validities in psychological science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211067779 & online tool: https://www.seaboat.io/

Specific suggestions for areas that reviews can focus on

• Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393 (Table 1: Six questions to promote transparent reporting of measurement practices)
• Corneille et al. (2023). Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.88654 (Table 1: Persuasive communication devices)
• Malički, M., & Mehmani, B. (2024). Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514 (list of questions available in Box 1 in the results)
• Holford et al. (2024). Engaging undergraduate students in preprint peer review. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241264495 - see Supplemental Appendix 1 for the list of questions, or OSF folder
• The Catalogue of Bias — https://catalogofbias.org/biases/
• The ‘REAPPRAISED’ checklist for evaluation of publication integrity — http://resource-cms.springernature.com/springer-cms/rest/v1/content/17589730/data/v1
• The ‘SOBER’ policies that specifically address issues of flexibility and norming in measurement — https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00026-9/tables/1