Send us a link
A new study of grants awarded to early-career researchers by Europe's premier science agency is reviving an old controversy over the way governments decide which scientists get research money, and which do not.
Researchers say the complaint filed against Elisabeth Bik could have a 'chilling effect' on scholarly criticism.
The nonsensical computer-generated articles, spotted years after the problem was first seen, could lead to a wave of retractions.
Acting as a reviewer is considered a substantial part of the role-bundle of the academic profession. However, little is known about academics' motivation to act as reviewers.
Join AfricArXiv, Eider Africa, TCC Africa, and PREreview for a virtual discussion and collaborative review of an African-relevant preprint.
If we want real public understanding of new findings, we must also open up peer review.
Free reviews from a nonprofit body could add to questions facing scientific publishers.
This author asks: Can scientists who are so meticulous in preparing their papers and so generous with their time in reviewing them for free not find better ways to advance science than relying on profiteering journals?
A preregistered survey experiment spanning six disciplines has found weak evidence of bias in favour of authors from high-status countries and institutions.
The two initiatives are continuing their joint efforts to increase the diversity of voices in scholarly review.
In recent decades new innovations in peer review have been developed to address issues of bias and inefficiency. These innovations are multifarious, but many of them relate to openness of peer review, reviewer incentives, and technological enhancements, such as the use of artificial intelligence.
Payment advocates expect quicker, better reviews but opponents fear unsustainable costs.
Many platforms have already started to use automated screening tools, to prevent plagiarism and failure to respect format requirements. Some tools even attempt to flag the quality of a study or summarise its content, to reduce reviewers' load.
Richard Smith spent some time reviewing two scientific papers, and the experience has made him wonder if it is time for peer reviewers to rise up in rebellion.
Survey finds widespread support for editing, but there is little guidance from journals.
Review and commentary can help authors improve their articles; curation can provide readers with helpful context and enhance discoverability. But despite the benefits, barriers to reviewing and curating preprints remain.
New policy comes after serious quality control questions were raised about the data relied on by a study in the medical journal
Getting rid of harmful papers is a vital step toward reestablishing readers' trust. Next, publishers should target articles that are flawed in other ways.
The editors of the Lancet Group examined The Lancet's peer-review processes to identify ways of further reducing risks of research and publication misconduct.
In support of #PeerRevWk20 theme #TrustInPeerReview, we asked the Chefs how trust in peer review could be improved. See what they said and add your thoughts!
This blog calls for a better scientific quality by pointing to the shortcomings in academia.
