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.
Send us a link
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.
Welcome to Publons Academy
A practical peer review training course for early career researchers developed together with expert academics and editors to teach you the core competencies and skills needed of a peer reviewer.
Survey on Open Peer Review
The results of a cross-disciplinary survey show that the majority of respondents are in favour of Open Peer Review becoming mainstream scholarly practice, as they also are for other areas of Open Science, like Open Access and Open Data.
What Might Peer Review Look Like in 2030?
A report based on the sessions at the SpotOn London conference held at Wellcome Collection Conference centre in November 2016.
How to Critically Evaluate a Manuscript
You've accepted an invitation to review a research article. Here's some step by step guidance for how to do it right.
Phony Peer Review
An unknown number of published studies have a hidden flaw: The “peers” who supposedly vouched for their publication are phonies.
Reviewers Are Blinkered by Bibliometrics
Science panels still rely on poor proxies to judge quality and impact.
Historic Co-Authorships Speed up Editor Handling Times
Journal editors tend to accept manuscripts written by prior collaborators more quickly.
Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows
A data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows.
Qauality and transparency of the peer-review process
The transparency of the peer-review process is an indicator of peer-review quality.
Rewarding reviewers - sense or sensibility?
Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind.
Why the referees' reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?
Why the referees' reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?
Authors tend to attribute manuscript acceptance to their own ability to write quality papers and simultaneously to blame rejections on negative bias in peer review, displaying a self-serving attributional bias.
Peer evaluation of science
This is a proposal for a system for evaluation of the quality of scientific papers by open review of the papers through a platform inspired by StackExchange.
Post-publication peer review: signed or anonymous?
Participating in open and signed post-publication peer review may not be so bad for your career after all.
Transparent peer review at Nature Communications
Starting Jan 2016 Nature Communications will publish peer reviews alongside with the paper.
The case for abolishing traditional peer review
We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside.
×