Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact
Peer review serves as the cornerstone of scientific quality control. Yet, the current journal-centric system is hindered by long timelines, high publication costs, inconsistent review quality, systemic biases, and editorial gatekeeping. Notably, the system relies on misaligned measures of impact that are tethered to journal branding and conflate scientific rigor (Quality) with perceived significance (Impact). Here, we report findings from the Discovery Stack Pilot Study, which tested a scientist-designed, journal-independent peer review model. The Discovery Stack model integrates in-line reviewer comments to promote constructive feedback and separately evaluates scientific Quality and Impact using defined criteria. To examine feasibility and effectiveness, manuscripts were reviewed in parallel with traditional journal review. A total of 162 reviews were completed, and survey data from 86 participants were analyzed. The results showed that reviewers effectively evaluated Quality and Impact as separate dimensions, with Quality scores being more consistent across reviewers than Impact scores. Participants strongly supported the core elements of the Discovery Stack model and expressed enthusiasm for its broader adoption to enhance transparency, efficiency, and value in peer review. Future studies will explore integrating this model into a digital platform for reviewing and curating scientific discoveries to improve the production and dissemination of high-quality research.
Authors
- Beiyun C. Liu
- Isabella Rauch (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1897-5693)
- Meghan A. Koch (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9539-4027)
- Matthew F. Krummel (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7915-3533)
- Lauren B. Rodda (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7763-8166)
- Richard Sever (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6478-931X)
- Hugo González Velozo (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2183-3637)
- Andrew Oberst (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9500-7912)
- Ken Cadwell (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5860-0661)
- Michael S. Kuhns (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0403-6313)
- Tiffany C. Scharschmidt (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5517-089X)
- José Ordovás-Montañés (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5444-5601)
- Tanya S. Freedman (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5168-5829)
- Sara Suliman (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5154-576X)
- Maureen A. McGargill (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0916-0372)
- Daniel Mucida (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-0452)
- Brooke Runnette
Institutions
- Broad Institute (US)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
- Cape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory / Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa (ZA)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
- University of Minnesota System (US)
- Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard (US)
- University of California System (US)
- San Sebastián University (CL)
- Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
- Solvis (Germany) (DE)
- Open Society (CZ)
- Fundación Ciencia and Vida (CL)
- Boston Children's Museum (US)
- Harvard Stem Cell Institute (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Rockefeller University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- PLoS Biology
- Published
- 2026-09-08
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003986
- Primary Topic
- Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00