At Positive Science we see peer review as a structured expert collaboration. Our workflow is inspired by how complex expert work is organised in industry: clear roles, shared responsibility, transparent steps, and accountable decisions.
We offer an alternative technology of peer review for authors and journals who want:
A new, evolving standard for journals that want structured, transparent and collaborative peer review.
What We Offer
• clear division of responsibilities between reviewers
• the option of anonymity for authors and some reviewers
• documented, constructive feedback that can be used for future work
• and fair, sustainable incentives for reviewers
1. Submission and Anonymity Options
Submission Process
The author submits an anonymised manuscript through our platform.
Anonymity Options
We understand that full anonymity is challenging in a world of preprints.
• Authors can choose whether to keep related preprints online or temporarily pause their visibility on preprint services, if they wish to maximise anonymity
• All files visible to reviewers are stripped of direct author identifiers (names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying references where possible)
This gives authors a realistic choice: benefit from open preprints or prioritise a more anonymous review process depending on their context and preferences.
2. Assignment to the Lead Reviewer
Each submission is first handled by a Lead Reviewer (a senior expert with a PhD in the relevant field).
The Lead Reviewer is responsible for:
• checking fit with the scope of the journal
• verifying compliance with ethical and integrity standards (including data handling, conflicts of interest, potential ethical concerns)
• deciding whether the manuscript should be sent for full peer review or returned to the author at this stage
If the manuscript is in scope and meets basic ethical and formal criteria, it proceeds to full review.
3. Three-Reviewer Panel
For each accepted manuscript, we convene a panel of three reviewers:
Panel Composition
• two additional reviewers with PhD-level expertise in the relevant discipline
Covered Dimensions
The three reviewers share responsibility for the manuscript but with clearly defined areas of focus. Across the panel, the following dimensions are covered:
• overall logic and coherence of the argument
• relevance and contribution to the field
• data sources and data quality
• research design and methodology
• correctness and transparency of calculations and empirical analysis
• basic fact-checking within the scope of the reviewers' expertise
This setup mirrors project teams in industry: a small, stable group with overlapping but not identical responsibilities.
4. Expert Networks and Controlled Consultation
We acknowledge that no single reviewer can be an expert in every technical detail.
Controlled Consultation Process
• When needed, reviewers may consult trusted colleagues in their professional network for clarification of specific, narrow questions
• Only limited parts of the manuscript relevant to the question may be shared, and always in a non-copyable format through our platform
• These colleagues do not become formal reviewers and do not see the full submission
This controlled consultation allows reviewers to double-check specialised points without compromising the author's confidentiality or transferring the manuscript outside our secure environment.
5. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Reviewers may use AI models as assistants for their work, for example to:
AI Assistant Uses
• help with consistency checks
• support basic fact-checking
• detect obvious errors in references, tables, or formulas
• structure their own reviewer reports
Our Commitments
• We work towards running AI models on our own local servers, so that manuscript data are not transferred to third-party providers
• Reviewers remain fully responsible for their judgements; AI tools are assistants, not decision-makers
• The use of AI must never replace critical reading and expert assessment
6. Transparency and Anonymity of Reviewers
We use a hybrid identity model for reviewers:
Identity Model
• The Lead Reviewer's identity is visible on the platform (to the journal and the author)
• The two additional reviewers remain anonymous by default
• They may choose to reveal their identities to the author after the process, for example if they wish to start a scientific dialogue or potential collaboration
Combined Approach Benefits
• accountability (through a clearly identified Lead Reviewer), and
• protection for reviewers who prefer to stay anonymous
7. Review Reports and Communication with Authors
Each of the three reviewers prepares a structured report in their area of responsibility. The final feedback sent to the author includes:
Feedback Components
• an overall recommendation
• detailed comments and requests for clarification or improvement
• clear separation between mandatory changes and optional suggestions
Key Points
• All reviewer reports are stored within Positive Science and shared with the author
• They are not published publicly by default
• Journals may choose to adopt additional policies (e.g. open reports) in agreement with Positive Science, but the baseline workflow keeps reports private
8. Decisions, Revisions and Timelines
Acceptance without revisions
If the panel finds no substantive issues, the manuscript can be accepted. Upon payment of the Article Processing Charges (APCs), the article is published on the journal website.
Revisions
If reviewers identify issues that require changes:
1. The author receives the consolidated feedback from the three reviewers
2. The author has two months to revise the manuscript and prepare a response to reviewers
3. The revised version is resubmitted via the platform and evaluated by (usually) the same panel
Upon successful re-review and acceptance, the article is published after APC payment. If major issues remain unresolved after revision, the panel may recommend rejection or an additional round of review, depending on journal policy.
9. Reviewer Motivation and Rewards
Consistent, high-quality reviewing requires time and energy. To support this work, we are developing a flexible financial reward system for reviewers.
Our Goals
• to recognise peer review as a form of professional expert work
• to reduce burnout and overreliance on a small group of reviewers
• to encourage long-term collaboration between reviewers and our platform
The reward system will evolve over time together with Positive Science, as we collect data, feedback and best practices from our community.
10. What This Model Aims to Deliver
• keep authors' options open regarding anonymity
• provide a clear, documented process instead of opaque decisions
• distribute evaluation across a team of reviewers with defined responsibilities
• allow careful use of expert networks and AI tools without compromising integrity
• and create sustainable incentives for reviewers
We see this as a new, evolving standard for journals that want structured, transparent and collaborative peer review.
Positive Science Peer-Review Methodology v1.0
