A group of early-career researchers have harnessed cross-institutional journal clubs to assess and review immunology preprints.

As early-career researchers (ECRs), we have experienced at first hand the challenges and consequences of navigating the peer-review system. By pursuing careers in academia, we agreed to subject ourselves to the scrutiny of fellow experts in our field, who evaluate the quality of our research and grant proposals. The decisions of these few, often-anonymous individuals have far-reaching effects on career progression, funding opportunities and reputations, both inside and outside the scientific community.

The peer-review process is often touted as a key arbiter of academic rigour — a means of ensuring that sub-par research doesn’t slip through the net. However, in recent years, its usefulness and relevance have been hotly debated. Supporters argue that peer review identifies errors, biases and misinterpretations. Opponents counter that the current process is based on repeated cycles of submission and rejection, which is time-consuming, expensive, lacks evidence of its efficacy and might hinder scientific progress¹. The confidential nature of peer review also makes it challenging to evaluate and reform the process.

Papers are increasing in volume, complexity and interdisciplinarity, which means that the pool of available and qualified reviewers is becoming ever more shallow. It can often feel as if the current peer-review model is reaching its limits. Unsurprisingly, recent years have seen the emergence of alternative publishing approaches that aim to address some of these limitations, such as the peer-review platform Review Commons² and the switch last year in the journal eLife’s editorial process and publishing model³.