Our lists

List name Number of articles Updated on
Evaluated articles 337

Who we are

RR\ID (Rapid Reviews\Infectious Diseases) is an open-access overlay journal that accelerates peer review of important infectious disease-related research preprints. We are an evolution of Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR\C19), which won the 2022 PROSE Award for Innovation in Journal Publishing for introducing a new peer review model facilitating rapid publishing of COVID-19-related research preprints. RR\ID expands beyond COVID-19 to advance our understanding of infectious diseases, leaning on a similar “curate, review, publish” model. RR\ID aims to prevent the dissemination of false/misleading scientific information and accelerate the validation and diffusion of robust findings. RR\ID aims to increase the application of science for the common good, responding to infectious disease challenges throughout the world.

Evaluation model

  • Strong: The main study claims are very well-justified by the data and analytic methods used. There is little room for doubt that the study produced has very similar results and conclusions as compared with the hypothetical ideal study. The study’s main claims should be considered conclusive and actionable without reservation.

  • Reliable: The main study claims are generally justified by its methods and data. The results and conclusions are likely to be similar to the hypothetical ideal study. There are some minor caveats or limitations, but they would/do not change the major claims of the study. The study provides sufficient strength of evidence on its own that its main claims should be considered actionable, with some room for future revision.

  • Potentially informative: The main claims made are not strongly justified by the methods and data, but may yield some insight. The results and conclusions of the study may resemble those from the hypothetical ideal study, but there is substantial room for doubt. Decision-makers should consider this evidence only with a thorough understanding of its weaknesses, alongside other evidence and theory. Decision-makers should not consider this actionable, unless the weaknesses are clearly understood and there is other theory and evidence to further support it.

  • Not informative: The flaws in the data and methods in this study are sufficiently serious that they do not substantially justify the claims made. It is not possible to say whether the results and conclusions would match that of the hypothetical ideal study. The study should not be considered as evidence by decision-makers.

  • Misleading: Serious flaws and errors in the methods and data render the study conclusions misinformative. The results and conclusions of the ideal study are at least as likely to conclude the opposite of its results and conclusions than agree. Decision-makers should not consider this evidence in any decision.


The Preprint Review Features (PReF) describes key elements of each group’s evaluation activities.

Review requested by
Reviewer selected by
Editor, service, or community
Public interaction
Inclusion of author response
Other scale or rating
Review coverage
Complete paper
Reviewer identity known to
Editor or service
Competing interests

Our team

We are prototyping a new type of peer curation network consisting of graduate students and field specialists. This cohort identifies relevant pre-print content for peer review, assisted by a new Natural Language Processing tool developed by COVIDScholar, an initiative of UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

Read more about RR\ID.

Content license

Content is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 unless otherwise specified.