Send us a link
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.
A Publons study aiming to bridge the gap in data and insights into the peer review of research funding and grant applications.
A researcher offers three principles for providing constructive, respectful feedback
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) discuss what you should consider when you are asked to peer review a manuscript.
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.
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.
Journals and editorial boards must accept their responsibility to guide positive reviewer behaviour and constructive feedback.
A case study discussing and analysing the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized 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.
Identification and synthetisation of studies that examine grant peer review criteria in an empirical and inductive manner.
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.
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.
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?
Measurement creates a temptation to achieve a measurable goal by less than totally honest means. As in physics, the simple act of measuring invariably disturbs what you are trying to measure.
The fifth annual Peer Review Week will take place from September 16-20, 2019. This post reflects on its history and achievements.
Reviewers can now enter their ORCID iD in the Editorial Manager submission system for all PLOS journals and opt-in to automatically get credit when they complete a review, the same way they would for their published articles.
ASAPbio launched Transpose, a database of journal peer review, co-reviewing, and preprint policies relating to media coverage, licensing, versions, and citation.
The purpose of peer review is often portrayed as being a simple ‘objective’ test of the soundness or quality of a research paper. However, it also performs other functions primarily through linking and developing relationships between networks of researchers.
If the system is adopted, reviewers and applicants will be anonymous, in an attempt to make selection fairer.
Registered Reports emphasize the importance of the research question and the quality of methodology by conducting peer review prior to data collection. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication if the authors follow through with the registered methodology.
The country's major funding agency says the tool reduces the time it takes to find referees.
Our Taken for Granted columnist discusses a new report about the practice-and recommendations for reform.
A new survey reveals the alarming extent of a practice that is universally considered unethical.
Thousands of Nature referees have chosen to be publicly acknowledged.
Swiss funding agency banned applicant-nominated referees after a 2016 study found evidence of bias. Those results are now being made public.
The development of preprint servers as self-organising peer review platforms could be the future of scholarly publication.
The National Institutes of Health uses small groups of scientists to judge the quality of the grant proposals that they receive, and these quality judgments form the basis of its funding decisions. In order for this system to fund the best science, the subject experts must, at a minimum, agree as to what counts as a “quality”proposal. We investigated the degree of agreement by leveraging data from a recent experiment with 412 scientists.
Paper finds that the disciplinary background and the academic status of the referee have an influence on their reviewing tasks. Articles that had been recommended by a multidisciplinary set of referees were found to receive subsequently more citations than those that had been reviewed by referees from the same discipline.
This paper investigates the impact of referee reliability on the quality and efficiency of peer review. We modeled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias.
