Enhancing scientific dissemination in neuroscience via preprint peer-review: “Peer Community In Circuit Neuroscience”


circuit neuroscience
open access
open science

How to Cite

Mercier, M., Magloire, V., & Karnani, M. (2020). Enhancing scientific dissemination in neuroscience via preprint peer-review: “Peer Community In Circuit Neuroscience”. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour, 2(1), e9. https://doi.org/10.35430/nab.2020.e9


The dissemination of scientific results and new technologies in biomedical science is rapidly evolving from an exclusive and fee-oriented publishing system towards more open, free and independent strategies for sharing knowledge. In this context, preprint servers such as bioRxiv answer a very real scientific need by enabling the rapid, free and easy dissemination of findings, regardless of whether these are novel, replicated, or even showcasing negative results. Currently, thousands of manuscripts are being shared via bioRxiv each month, and neuroscience is the largest and fastest growing subject category. However, commenting on bioRxiv is declining and no structured scientific validation such as peer-review is currently available. The Peer Community In (PCI) platform addresses this unmet need by facilitating the rigorous evaluation and validation of preprints, and PCI Circuit Neuroscience (PCI C Neuro) aims to develop and extend this tool for the neuroscience community. Here we discuss PCI C Neuro’s mission, how it works, and why it is an essential initiative in this new era of open science.



Khoo SYS. Article processing charge hyperinflation and price insensitivity: An open access sequel to the serials crisis. LIBER Quarterly. 2019;29:1–18. doi:10.18352/lq.10280.

Grossmann A, Brembs B. Assessing the size of the affordability problem in scholarly publishing. PeerJ Preprints. 2019;doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27809v1.

Royles SJ. Waiting to happen: Publication lag times in cell biology journals. In: quantixed; 2015.Available from: https://quantixed.org/2015/03/09/waiting-to-happen-publication-lag-times-in-cell-biology-journals/.

Huisman J, J S. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113:633–650. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5.

Quake S. Stanford Medicine Big Data: Precision Health 2017. In: YouTube; 2017.Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9hlbet2Lk.

Fraser N, Momeni F, Mayr P, Peters I. The effect of bioRxiv preprints on citations and altmetrics. bioRxiv. 2019;673665. doi:10.1101/673665.

Kaiser J. NIH enables investigators to include draft preprints in grant proposals. Science. 2017;doi:10.1126/science.aal0961.

Polka J. ASAPbio preprint survey results. Figshare. 2016;doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.2247616.

Beveridge WIB. The art of scientific investigation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1957.

Abdill RJ, Blekhman R. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. eLife;8. doi:10.7554/eLife.45133.

Marra M. Astrophysicists and physicists as creators of ArXiv-based commenting resources for their research communities. An initial survey. Information Services & Use. 2017;37:371–387. doi:10.3233/ISU-170856.

Wang L, Zhan YA. A conceptual peer review model for arXiv and other preprint databases. Learned Publishing. 2019;32(3):213–219. doi:10.1002/leap.1229.


Download data is not yet available.