In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment we, as contributors and maintainers, pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
We believe it is our duty as scientists at any level of our career to contribute to scientific evaluation in the form of peer review. PREreview provides a space for any researcher, independently of their career level, to provide feedback to emerging scientific output.
The PREreview team is responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and is expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.
The PREreview team has the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject reviews and comments, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, as well as to temporarily or permanently ban any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
Who does this Code of Conduct apply to?
This Code of Conduct applies to PREreview members contributing directly on this platform or members/non-members participating in events organized by PREreview (workshops, live-streamed preprint journal clubs, community calls, etc.).
Reporting Code of Conduct violations
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported directly by contacting the PREreview leadership team at email@example.com, or anonymously by filling out this anonymous form.
An example of unacceptable behavior includes, but is not limited to, a rude and/or destructive comment appearing in a PREreview (see below for more examples of unacceptable behavior).
All complaints will be reviewed and investigated, and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances.
The PREreview team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the person that reports an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. PREreview members who do not follow and PREreview team members who do not enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
Example behaviors that contribute to creating a positive environment include:
- Using welcoming and inclusive language;
- Providing feedback that is constructive, i.e., useful to the receiver (see more below);
- Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences;
- Gracefully accepting constructive criticism;
- Focusing on what is best for the community;
- Showing empathy towards other community members.
Examples of unacceptable behaviors by participants include:
- Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks;
- Providing unconstructive or disruptive feedback on PREreview;
- Public or private harassment;
- Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission;
- The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances;
- Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting.
At PREreview we ask all contributors to disclose any competing interest (CI) that may exist between a rapid review author (or affiliated organization) and the author(s) (or affliated organization) of the reviewed preprint.
In the context of this platform, a competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the objective of a review of a preprint on PREreview.
Examples of competing interests that would be considered a violation of this Code of Conduct if not disclosed include, but are not limited to:
- The author of the PREreview is an author of the reviewed preprint;
- The author of the PREreview has a personal relationship with the author(s) of the reviewed preprint;
- The author of the PREreview is a rival or competitor of the author(s) of the reviewed preprint;
- The author of the PREreview has recently worked in the same institution or organization as the author(s) of the reviewed preprint;
- The author of the PREreview is a collaborator of the author(s) of the reviewed preprint;
- The author of the PREreview has published with the author(s) of the reviewed preprint during the last 5 years;
- The author of the PREreview holds a grant with the author(s) of the reviewed preprint.
Competing interests matter because they can introduce perceived or actual bias in the evaluation of the preprint that can have repercussions all the way to the journal acceptance of that manuscript.
If you think that you have a potential competing interest with the authors, or the organization to which the author(s) is affiliated, please do disclose it in your PREreview. A failure to disclose a competing interest is considered a violation of this Code of Conduct and will be treated accordingly.
To read more about competing interests in peer review, please refer to the Plos Reviewer Center’s resources. They provide a very useful checklist for you to self-evaluate your possible competing interest in relation to a manuscript you wish to review or comment.
The content of this page was adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4 and from Plos Peer Reviewer Center. If you have questions, feedback (please constructive only!), or suggestions on how to improve it, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for being a good community member!