Redefining scientific communication
"Peer review is mortally sick" according to Vitek Tracz.
Send us a link
Four reasons to feel good about the future of peer review
Behind the headlines are exciting initiatives that have the potential to, not just improve peer review, but optimize it for 21st century scholarship.
BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review
BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers possibly involving third-party companies selling the service.
Why you can't always believe what you read in scientific journals
When people talk about the flaws in the scientific process, they often raise the problem of peer review. Right now, when a researcher submits an article for publication in a journal, it's sent off to his or her peers for constructive criticism or even rejection.
The glaring paradox of impact vs. experience in biology journals
The professionally trained scientists who make decisions on biology papers at the big journals with the big journal impact factors have significantly less scientific experience and far weaker publication records than the editors of lower journal impact factor biology journals.
Wiley-Publons pilot program enhances peer-reviewer recognition
Wiley is piloting a partnership with Publons to give you official recognition for your peer review work. This partnership means you can opt-in to have your reviews for participating Wiley journals automatically added to your reviewer profile on Publons.
Will double-blind reviewing bring quality into focus?
Nature is offering anonymity for both reviewer and reviewed, but questions remain about value and effectiveness of the approach.
The big consequences of small biases
A simulation of grant submission and peer review shows that small biases in evaluation can have big consequences.
Nature journals offer
d[3]ouble-blind review [niWsUluYRUOIzRCEqHYY_nature-header.ed_400x400.png]
Oath market
Quality control in science journals is evolving, with a code of ethics in hot pursuit.
Scientists have the power to change the publishing system
We need to assess who gets funded based on research merit, not journal label.
What would happen if grant reviews were made public?
Researchers on social media discuss the potential impact of making peer review more transparent.
Evaluating your own paper
A few professional scientists have found a sneaky way to cheat their way up the career ladder. They evaluate their own research by pretending to be someone else.
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping
Evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work.
Fighting to protect its commenters anonymity
Opinion article by the founders of PubPeer.com on right to anonymity.
The peer-review scam
When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.
Who's afraid of open peer review?
Celebrating Open Access Week 2014 affords an opportunity to study and promote all aspects of ‘Open.’
Open, single-blind, double-blind: which process do you prefer?
We discuss the views and experiences of our Editorial Board Members towards open peer review on this biomedical journal.
Should we put our money where our citations are?
Pros and cons of an alternative for today’s method of allocating research funds using peer review.
Review rewards
Welcome efforts are being made to recognize academics who give up their time to peer review.
Who governs science?
Recent retraction of two papers on stem-cell research by the journal Nature highlights weaknesses in this self-regulatory framework that scientists need to address.
'Impact': prestige or relevance for developing world research?
The release of the 2014 Impact Factor Report was being awaited, as usual, with some anticipation. Yet this comes at a time when there is an ever-rising tide of contestation about its value in a radically changing research environment, especially in the developing world.
Retractions are coming thick and fast: it's time for publishers to act
Commenters on post-publication peer review sites such as PubPeer are catching errors that traditional peer reviewers have missed.
US ideas have a disproportionate influence on business schools
The changing nature of research evaluation in UK higher education is creating perverse and damaging consequences that reinforce an excessively narrow definition of what counts as "high-quality" research.
Journals weigh up double-blind peer review
Anonymity of authors as well as reviewers could level field for women and minorities in science.
What lesson do rising retraction rates hold for peer review?
The rate of retractions of scientific papers has been growing over the past decade, suggestive to some of a crisis of confidence in science. Can we no longer trust the scientific literature?
The Guardian view on the end of the peer review
Nature, the pre-eminent journal for reporting scientific research, has had to retract two papers it published in January after mistakes were spotted in the figures, some of the methods descriptions were found to be plagiarised and early attempts to replicate the work failed.
Would Fred Sanger get funded today?
In an era of large collaborations, multi-authored papers, and enormous datasets, is there still room for the single creative idea that proves to be a gamechanger?
Real peer to peer review
The Winnower is another open access online science publishing platform that employs open post-publication peer review, aiming to revolutionize science by breaking down the barriers to scientific communication through cost-effective and transparent publishing for scientists.
Let the light shine in
Scientists make much of the fact that their work is scrutinised anonymously by some of their peers before it is published. This "peer review" is supposed to spot mistakes and thus keep the whole process honest.
×