Publons

Publons
Name	Publons
Type	Private
Industry	Scholarly publishing services
Founded	2012
Fate	Acquired by Clarivate in 2017
Headquarters	Melbourne, Australia
Key people	Andrew Preston, Daniel Johnston, Jamie Woodcock

Publons was a scholarly peer review and researcher profile service that recorded and verified peer review, editorial work, and publications for researchers. Launched in 2012, the platform aimed to provide credit for peer review contributions and to aggregate review metrics for academic recognition, faculty hiring, and grant applications. The service interfaced with academic journals, publishers, and indexing services to validate reviewer activity and to display reviewer profiles alongside publication records.

History

Publons was founded in 2012 by Australian entrepreneurs and academics in Melbourne. Early growth involved partnerships with publishers and universities that sought alternatives to traditional recognition mechanisms used by Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE Publications. In 2017 Publons was acquired by Clarivate Analytics, which itself had spun out of Thomson Reuters' Intellectual Property and Science division and later managed the Web of Science. The acquisition followed prior investments and competition with scholarly-platforms such as ResearchGate, ORCID, Academia.edu, and reviewer-tracking initiatives by CrossRef and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Post-acquisition integration prompted collaborations with indexing and bibliometric services including InCites, Journal Citation Reports, and institutional systems at universities like Harvard University, University of Oxford, Stanford University, and University of Melbourne. The platform's trajectory intersected with debates involving organizations such as National Institutes of Health, European Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and professional societies including American Chemical Society, American Physical Society, and Royal Society.

Services and Features

Publons offered verified reviewer records, editorial board listings, and publication lists that users could claim and curate. Features mirrored or complemented services from ORCID records and bibliometric outputs from Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, enabling linkage with author identifiers like ResearcherID and institutional repositories such as arXiv and SSRN. The platform provided reviewer badges, verified review counts, and summary dashboards similar to altmetric and citation-tracking tools used by Altmetric (company), Google Scholar, and Dimensions (database). Integration with manuscript submission systems and publisher workflows from Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, and platforms used by PLOS, BMJ, Nature Publishing Group, and Frontiers Media allowed automatic recognition of peer review. Additional features included editorial recognition for journals affiliated with organizations such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and training resources comparable to programs run by COPE and the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Integration with Web of Science and Clarivate

Following acquisition, Publons' datasets and reviewer metrics were integrated into Clarivate products such as Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports, and InCites. This linkage enabled cross-referencing of reviewer activity with citation indicators tied to journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. The integration facilitated interoperability with identifiers managed by ORCID and with analytics used by grant agencies including UK Research and Innovation and national assessment frameworks like Research Excellence Framework. Clarivate steered the incorporation of Publons’ verified peer-review records into institutional dashboards alongside bibliometric outputs from EndNote and corporate services used by research offices at institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Cambridge.

Reception and Criticism

Community response encompassed praise for recognizing reviewer labor and critique regarding gamification and metricization of peer review. Advocates compared Publons favorably to recognition gaps addressed by ORCID and applauded ties to society publishers like American Psychological Association and IEEE. Critics included scholars connected to initiatives such as DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), who warned against reliance on single-platform metrics and potential influence on tenure committees at universities including Columbia University and Princeton University. Concerns were raised by editorial boards and watchdog groups about commodification of peer review, echoing debates around Sci-Hub, open-access business models promoted by Plan S, and ethical guidance from COPE. Some librarians and information scientists affiliated with Association of Research Libraries and International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions critiqued transparency and reproducibility of aggregated reviewer indicators.

Data Privacy and Security

Publons’ handling of reviewer identities, affidavits of review, and manuscript metadata drew scrutiny from privacy advocates and legal scholars working with frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and data policies referenced by Australian Privacy Principle frameworks. Integration with third-party systems (publishers such as Elsevier and platforms like Editorial Manager) required consent workflows and verification protocols comparable to practices at CrossRef and identity management by ORCID. Security considerations mirrored concerns common to large scholarly databases like Scopus and corporate data holdings managed by Clarivate, with institutional IT offices at universities—such as University of California campuses—reviewing compliance and retention policies.

Impact on Peer Review and Academic Recognition

Publons altered incentives and documentation for peer review by enabling reviewers affiliated with journals from publishers such as Nature Research and Wiley to present tangible records to hiring committees and funders including National Science Foundation and European Commission. The platform influenced editorial recruitment at scholarly societies like American Association for the Advancement of Science and reoriented conversations about credit alongside citation metrics from Web of Science and altmetrics from Altmetric. Institutions and funders weighed Publons data when evaluating service contributions in promotion and tenure cases, intersecting with assessment reforms advocated by DORA and policy revisions at organizations such as Wellcome Trust and NIH.

Category:Academic publishing