What is Peer Review in Science? A Complete Guide - ARTiFACTS
Ready to stop asking yourself, what is a peer review in science? Allow us to enlighten you. Here is your complete guide!
Send us a link
Open Peer-Review Platform for COVID-19 Preprints
Open Peer-Review Platform for COVID-19 Preprints
The public call for rapid sharing of research data relevant to the COVID-19 outbreak is driving an unprecedented surge in (unrefereed) preprints. To help pinpoint the most important research, Nature launched Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview, an open-source platform for rapid review of preprints related to emerging outbreaks.
Unlock Ways to Share Data on Peer Review
Journals, funders and scholars must work together to create an infrastructure to study peer review.
Living Science: Words Without Meaning
Many of the words used by scientists when reviewing manuscripts, job candidates and grant applications - words such as incremental, novelty, mechanism, descriptive and impact - have lost their meaning.
Nature Will Publish Peer Review Reports As a Trial
Research involves deep discussions between authors and reviewers. Starting this week, readers of some Nature Research journals will be able to see this up close.
5 Things We Learned About Peer Review in 2019
Peer review can increase the chances of future collaboration, but it doesn't help much against author conflicts of interest.
Have the 2010s Been Good for Peer Review?
How has peer review fared in the 2010s? We outline some key trends that have helped to define, challenge and progress the peer review system over the decade.
Rude Paper Reviews Are Pervasive and Sometimes Harmful, Study Finds
Researchers of color are particularly vulnerable to "unprofessional" comments.
Review Commons is Now LIVE
ASAPbio and EMBO Press have launched Review Commons, a platform for high-quality, journal-independent peer review of manuscripts in the life sciences before they are submitted to a journal.
Celebrating 6 Months of Published Peer Review at PLOS
More than 800 PLOS articles have already been published with accompanying peer review history, transforming options for transparency in the assessment process.
Don't Let Researchers Recommend Who Reviews Their Work
Some funders and publishers call it unethical, for others, it's par for the course.
Peer Review: New Initiatives to Enhance the Value of eLife's Process
Michael Eisen, eLife's Editor-in-Chief, reflects on lessons learned from a recent peer-review trial, and describes how eLife aims to make peer review more effective.
Community Comments and Peer Review: A Preprint Commenting Pilot at PLOS
We're increasing peer review transparency by making it easier for public comments on preprints to be considered in the review process at PLOS journals.
Research Culture: Co-reviewing and Ghostwriting by Early-career Researchers in the Peer Review of Manuscripts
Research Culture: Co-reviewing and Ghostwriting by Early-career Researchers in the Peer Review of Manuscripts
Early career researchers commonly peer review manuscripts on behalf of invited reviewers, often without receiving feedback or being named to the journal.
What Happened when a Professor Was Accused of Sharing His Own Work on His Website
What Happened when a Professor Was Accused of Sharing His Own Work on His Website
Recent allegations of copyright violations against a professor who shared his own work on his website spark debate about ownership and whether peer reviewers should be paid.
The Limitations to Our Understanding of Peer Review
Peer review is embedded in the core of our scholarly knowledge generation systems, conferring legitimacy on research while distributing academic capital and prestige on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions.
Thousands of Grant Peer Reviewers Share Concerns in Global Survey
Peer review process helps funders make decisions, but researchers say it is lacks transparency and takes up too much of their time.
In Bid to Boost Transparency, BioRxiv Begins Posting Peer Reviews Next to Preprints
In Bid to Boost Transparency, BioRxiv Begins Posting Peer Reviews Next to Preprints
BioRxiv, the server for life sciences preprints, has begun an experiment that allows select journals and independent peer-review services to publicly post evaluations of its papers should the authors make the request.
Grant Review In Focus
A Publons study aiming to bridge the gap in data and insights into the peer review of research funding and grant applications.
Reviewers, Don't Be Rude to Nonnative English Speakers
A researcher offers three principles for providing constructive, respectful feedback
What to Consider when Asked to Peer Review a Manuscript
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) discuss what you should consider when you are asked to peer review a manuscript.
Quality in Peer Review: An Interview with Tracey Brown, Sense About Science
Continuing our celebration of Peer Review Week 2019, today Alice Meadows interviews Tracey Brown, OBE, Director of Sense about Science, which has been involved in Peer Review Week from the start.
Quality is Multi-Dimensional: How Many Ways Can You Define Quality in Peer Review?
Quality is Multi-Dimensional: How Many Ways Can You Define Quality in Peer Review?
Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf kick off the fifth annual Peer Review Week with their thoughts on defining quality in peer review principles and practices.
Peer Reviewers Need a Code of Conduct Too
Journals and editorial boards must accept their responsibility to guide positive reviewer behaviour and constructive feedback.
Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing
A case study discussing and analysing the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review.
Filling in the Gaps: The Interpretation of Curricula Vitae in Peer Review
A study of the use of curricula vitae for competitive funding decisions in science suggests that bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.
Criteria for Assessing Grant Applications: A Systematic Review
Identification and synthetisation of studies that examine grant peer review criteria in an empirical and inductive manner.
Amidst Criticism of the Peer Review Process, the Valuable Contributions of Reviewers Should Be Defended
Amidst Criticism of the Peer Review Process, the Valuable Contributions of Reviewers Should Be Defended
As flaws in the peer review process are highlighted and calls for reform become more frequent, it may be tempting for some to denigrate and dismiss the contributions of the reviewers themselves.
Why We Shouldn’t Take Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’
Targeting a general audience, this opinion piece argues that with more transparency about the publication process, we might have a more nuanced understanding of how knowledge is built - and fewer people taking “peer-reviewed” to mean settled truth.
Balancing Author Satisfaction with Reviewer Needs
Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect?
×