Send us a link
No agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of 25 NIH grant applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations.
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.
Reporting summaries help authors to provide important details before review.
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’.
Elsevier announced a partnership with a nonprofit named Hypothesis, which makes annotation software that lets readers make margin notes on online articles.
Survey reveals reluctance to take open peer review to the limit.
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.
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.
Striking success has been had in catalyzing retractions by publicly calling out perplexing data and spotting anomalies in the literature.
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.
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.
A discussion about the role and concerns of graduate students and postdocs in peer review.
A collection of recent (and not-so-recent) literature on journal peer review.
Results of the Peer Review in the Life Sciences survey conducted by ASAPbio.
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.
Conferences on Peer Review have been held every 4 years since 1989 to present research into the quality of publication processes. The 8th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication was held in Chicago in September 2017.
Many researchers have strong views on peer review. To find out what early-career researchers think we conducted a survey in which we asked 10 questions about different aspects of peer review.
This article describes the use of qualitative research to explore the peer review process used for awarding grants to ten multi-national natural science research consortia
Article exploring the journal peer review process, examining how the reviewing process might itself contribute to papers, leading them to be more highly cited and to achieve greater recognition.
Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines.
The Journal Dashboards allow journals to see what people are saying about the papers they published, and allows readers to know which journals are particularly responsive to community feedback.
Les Hatton and Gregory Warr give their two-pronged solution to the problems of peer review
We might hope for a better future where everyone acts professionally, but we should be realistic about the flaws of our human nature. Opinion piece by Stephen Curry.
Peer review decisions award >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved.
Retraction Watch interviews Irene Hames.
A collection that explores recent developments and debates in the UK and internationally, offering varied perspectives on the future of research assessment.
Single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.
The case for “blinding” to make journal peer review fair seems less and less plausible to me for the long run. It even seems antithetical to ultimately reducing the problems it’s a bandaid solution for.
Emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review.
