Evidence of Gender Bias Found in Peer Review
Men were more likely to secure health research grants than women in Canadian study.
Send us a link
We Must Demand Evidence of Peer Review
Peer review varies in quality and thoroughness. Making it publicly available could improve it.
When Will Peer Reviewers Finally Get Paid?
Right now, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewers, the scientists who scrutinize the latest studies, aren't paid for their labor. This is completely ridiculous. Peer review may be the most important part of the scientific enterprise, and it is not incentivized monetarily.
Beyond Impact Factors: An Academy of Management Report on Measuring Scholarly Impact
Beyond Impact Factors: An Academy of Management Report on Measuring Scholarly Impact
Findings of a recent Academy of Management report that sought answers to these questions by surveying its 20,000 members and conducting a selection of in-depth interviews with prominent figures.
Peer Review: Correspondence by Relationship at the Royal Society
Discover enlightening reports about some of the most famous scientific papers, or read famous scientists considering the work of their peers.
Advocating for Publishing Peer Review
Perspectives on the benefits of open peer review, and responding to concerns.
Open Peer Review: Bringing Transparency, Accountability, and Inclusivity to the Peer Review Process
Open Peer Review: Bringing Transparency, Accountability, and Inclusivity to the Peer Review Process
Open peer review is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. Tony Ross-Hellauer provides an overv…
#PressForProgress in Peer Review
Publons reveals which countries have the most - and the most prolific - female peer reviewers.
The More Revisions a Paper Undergoes, the Greater Its Subsequent Recognition in Terms of Citations
The More Revisions a Paper Undergoes, the Greater Its Subsequent Recognition in Terms of Citations
Some evidence showing that the more revisions a paper undergoes, the greater its subsequent recognition in terms of citation impact.
Writing a Peer Review Is a Structured Process That Can Be Learned and Improved
Writing a Peer Review Is a Structured Process That Can Be Learned and Improved
12 steps, relevant to both first-time peer reviewers and those keen to brush up on their skills.
NIH Moves to Punish Researchers who Violate Confidentiality
The NIH announced in December 2017 that it would rereview dozens of applications that might have been compromised in terms of confidentiality.
8 Simple Mistakes That Can Delay Peer Review (and How to Avoid Them)
A short list of common issues that can delay a submission. Check your manuscript for these issues, and and then read our advice for how to fix them.
Peer Review Fails to Prevent Publication of Paper with Unsupported Claims About Peer Review
Peer Review Fails to Prevent Publication of Paper with Unsupported Claims About Peer Review
A flawed article claiming that manuscripts don't change much between being preprints and published articles somehow makes it through peer review unchanged.
A Curious Blindness Among Peer Review Initiatives
Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Low Agreement Among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications
Low Agreement Among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications
No agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of 25 NIH grant applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations.
How to Make Scientists Into Better Peer Reviewers
From efforts to increase the transparency of the review process to initiatives offering training, there are many attempts underway to make better reviewers out of researchers.
Nature Journals Announce Two Steps to Improve Transparency
Reporting summaries help authors to provide important details before review.
How Not To Be A Crank: Ten Rules For Not Being A Science-Dick
When you criticize science in public, you are taking a complicated argument to people who don’t care very much about the work of someone who wishes you’d shut up. This can be difficult to navigate. Although it’s often ‘a complete pain in the taint’ more than just ‘difficult’.
How a Partnership Over Annotation Software Fits Into Bigger Changes in Research Workflow
How a Partnership Over Annotation Software Fits Into Bigger Changes in Research Workflow
Elsevier announced a partnership with a nonprofit named Hypothesis, which makes annotation software that lets readers make margin notes on online articles.
Researchers Coy About Complete Review Transparency
Survey reveals reluctance to take open peer review to the limit.
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
Some scientists want to change the old-fashioned way scientific advancements are evaluated and communicated. But they have to overcome the power structure of the traditional journal vetting process.
Researchers Debate Whether Journals Should Publish Signed Peer Reviews
Signed reviews could encourage reviewers to produce more careful evaluations, and make fewer gratuitously negative comments. Publicly identifying and crediting reviewers for their work could help them win tenure and promotions.
Meet the 'Data Thugs' out to Expose Shoddy and Questionable Research
Striking success has been had in catalyzing retractions by publicly calling out perplexing data and spotting anomalies in the literature.
Researchers Debate Whether Journals Should Publish Signed Peer Reviews
HHMI meeting examines ways to improve manuscript vetting: little consensus on whether reviewers should have to publicly sign their critiques, which traditionally are accessible only to editors and authors.
Hypothesis and the Center for Open Science Collaborate on Annotation
Hypothesis and the Center for Open Science Collaborate on Annotation
To enable peer feedback, collaboration and transparency in scientific research practices, Hypothesis and the Center for Open Science (COS) are announcing a new partnership to bring open annotation to Open Science Framework (OSF) Preprints and the 17 community preprint servers hosted on OSF.
Early Career Researchers and Their Involvement in Peer Review
A discussion about the role and concerns of graduate students and postdocs in peer review.
Six Essential Reads on Peer Review
A collection of recent (and not-so-recent) literature on journal peer review.
Peer Review Survey Results
Results of the Peer Review in the Life Sciences survey conducted by ASAPbio.
Network Effects on Editorial Decisions in Four Computer Science Journals
A study that examines the publication bias due to authors’ reputation shows that more reputed authors were less likely to be rejected with negative reviews, and that journal-specificities were important but never completely reversed this outcome.
×