Send us a link

Subscribe to our newsletter

A Collection of Papers that Should Never Have Been Published

A Collection of Papers that Should Never Have Been Published

A collection of thirteen papers that were intended to be unpublishable. All were submitted to predatory journals to expose non-existent peer review and exploitative practices.

Do Models Affect Junior Doctors’ Trust in Journals?

Do Models Affect Junior Doctors’ Trust in Journals?

A recently published study in Research Integrity and Peer Review, that surveyed 178 trainee doctors, finds that although peer review is perceived as an important means of quality control by this community, there is little value placed on being able to scrutinize peer review themselves.

Science's Quality-Control System under Attack

Science's Quality-Control System under Attack

Lengthy publication delays, theft of rivals’ research, allegations of shoddy reviewing, and even the faking of reviews are raising new questions about a decades-old scientific tradition

Can Editors Protect Peer Review from Bad Reviewers?

Can Editors Protect Peer Review from Bad Reviewers?

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify.

Defining Open Peer Review

Defining Open Peer Review

Recently, our colleagues at OpenAIRE have published a systematic review of ‘Open Peer Review’ (OPR). As part of this, they defined seven consistent traits of OPR, which we thought sounded like a remarkably good opportunity to help clarify how peer review works at ScienceOpen. At ScienceOpen, we have over 31 million article records all available for …