Send us a link
Nearly thirty years ago a paper was published claiming women academics need to work 2.4 times harder than their male counterparts to attain the same status. Re-examining this paper, Ulf Sandström questions its validity and suggests what higher education policymakers can learn from this overreliance on a single study.
A randomized controlled study demonstrates that large language model-generated feedback can make reviews more informative while enhancing reviewer-author engagement. Preprint available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09737
A study of millions of life science papers revealed that manuscripts with women in key authorship roles spent longer between submission and acceptance.
The groundbreaking inquiry follows a complaint from a Polish company that the use of AI to evaluate its EIC bid was unfair.
Generative AI is already being used by some universities to assess the quality of their research - and it could be scaled up to help all higher education institutions save huge amounts of time and money.
A lottery-first approach followed by peer review is accompanied by increased female representation both at the submission stage and among funded projects as well as by lower estimated costs.
A new PNAS study uses openly available articles to map the scale of paper mill and peer review ring activity across scholarly publishing.
The lessons of decades of research into assessment and feedback haven't tracked across into the practice of peer review. Why not?
Initiative "supports Springer Nature's broader commitment to research transparency and open sharing".
New research by ESMT Berlin and Politecnico di Milano explores how non-experts assess scientific research proposals and reveals key implications for public participation in science funding.
Peer review is crucial for academic communities to ensure high-quality research. Drawing on 39 semi-structured interviews, the study investigates how reviewers for three publishing outlets in psychology experience the tension between community responsibility and various priorities of a more individual kind.
Building on extensive observations of grant review panels and interviews with panelists in five funding organizations, this study explores how such panels assess societal impact.
Studies have increasingly shown the widespread use of generative AI in research publications. Faced with the consequent uptick in the number of publications, Simone Ragavooloo argues that editors and reviewers should embrace AI tools to undertake the heavy lifting of statistical and methodological review and to allow them to focus on areas that require human expertise.
Scientists who spend time peer-reviewing manuscripts don't get rewarded for their efforts. It's time to change that.
Open peer review is often discussed more in theory than practice. Drawing on evidence from a recent systematic review of open peer review studies, Tony Ross-Hellauer and Serge P.J.M. Horbach find many persistent questions around open peer review remain poorly examined and call for a more experimental approach to open peer review practices.
Academic peer review is seriously undertheorized because peer review studies focus on discovering and confirming phenomena, such as biases, and are much less concerned with explaining, predicting, or controlling phenomena on a theoretical basis.
Peer review is, at heart, a process of validation - but how do you learn to peer review?
While peer review has long been perceived as the cornerstone of self-governance in science, researchers have expressed distrust in the peer review procedures of funding agencies.
This exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands provides insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings.
Concerns include confidentiality, accuracy, and "originality of thought".
Faced with a deluge of papers, journal editors are struggling to find willing peer reviewers.
