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.
Send us a link
China Cracks Down After Investigation Finds Massive Peer-Review Fraud
More than 400 authors on some 100 papers from a single journal face punishments
Fraud Scheme Uncovered in China
The Chinese government finds almost 500 researchers guilty of misconduct in relation to a recent spate of retractions from a cancer journal.
Funders Groan Under Growing Review Burden
The number of grant applications is going up in almost every country and field, whereas budgets are mostly flat or shrinking.
Peer Review Is a Black Box. Let's Open It Up
A new paper argues that journal publishers should become much more transparent about their peer review practices.
Promote Scientific Integrity via Journal Peer Review Data
Promote Scientific Integrity via Journal Peer Review Data
There is too little sound research on journal peer review.
A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review
A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review
Examining the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and comparing these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system.
Birkbeck to Investigate the Peer Review Process
Thanks to a $99,000 research grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
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.
Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review
The history and present diversity of peer review practices.
Opening up the Black Box of Peer Review
Liz Allen looks into what peer review actually tells us and how we use expert opinion.
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
China Cracks Down on Fake Peer Reviews
Funding agencies announce harsh penalties and stronger policing efforts.
Is Science Broken, Or Is It Self-Correcting?
How retractions and peer-review problems are exploited to attack science.
The Allocation of Scientific Grants Should Be a Science
His experiences on a panel reviewing Canadian grant allocation has convinced Jonathan Grant that the evidence base for current practice needs serious reinforcement.
Chemistry Journal Introduces ‘Intelligent Crowd’ Peer Review
Online platform aims to make peer review faster, unbiased and less of a burden on researchers
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.
Impressions From the First Published Results-Free Article
What results-free review might mean for authors, reviewers, editors and readers.
Journal Tries Crowdsourcing Peer Reviews, Sees Excellent Results
Approach allows reviewers to focus on the stuff they know best, speeds up process.
A Thankless Job That One Firm Wants to Change
Publons wants scientists to be rewarded for assessing others’ work.
Essential to Good Science
Peer review recognition company Publons is set to expand under new owners. Could this boost peer review and stop it being seen as an onerous, thankless task?
NIH Finds Using Anonymous Proposals to Test for Bias is Harder than it Looks
NIH Finds Using Anonymous Proposals to Test for Bias is Harder than it Looks
Race-blind reviews very difficult and may not help, researchers say
Crowd-Based Peer Review Can Be Good and Fast
Confidential feedback from many interacting reviewers can help editors make better, quicker decisions.
Crowd-Based Peer Review Can Be Good and Fast
Confidential feedback from many interacting reviewers can help editors make better, quicker decisions.
Monument to Peer Review Unveiled in Moscow
Cornerstone of modern science immortalized in concrete.
In Referees We Trust?
The imprimatur bestowed by peer review has a history that is both shorter and more complex than many scientists realize.
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 …
TrueReview, A Platform for Post-Publication Peer Review
We describe the mathematical foundations and structure of TrueReview, an open-source tool we propose to build in support of post-publication review.
Could Robots Handle Peer Review?
Technologist argues that artificial intelligence could make publishing decisions in milliseconds.
Artificial Intelligence Can Expedite Scientific Communication and Eradicate Bias From the Publishing Process
Artificial Intelligence Can Expedite Scientific Communication and Eradicate Bias From the Publishing Process
Although automated publishing would allow researchers to share their findings faster, while also removing human bias, there are obvious ethical dilemmas related to this dehumanisation of the process.
×