ArticlePLoS biology2026
Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.
Article in PLoS biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.