Send us a link
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.
How is a scientific article accepted for publication in an academic journal? What is the role of peer reviewers? Where does the system go astray?
Encouraging researchers to post their outputs as preprints.
What would the world be like without formal peer review?, asks Fields medallists Timothy Gowers.
Maybe there isn't a peer-review 'crisis,' at least in terms of quantity.
Tackling unconscious bias is a major challenge for journals and the rest of the scientific community.
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
New simulation study says peer review is better at assuring quality research than random publication choices, but some systems of review are significantly better than others. Editors seen as more effective than peer-review panels alone.
Publons new Review Distribution Index reveals that a small proportion of reviewers do the lion's share of the peer review.
This article provides a quantitative analysis of peer review as an emerging field of research by revealing patterns and connections between authors, fields and journals from 1950 to 2016.
Opinions are divided on whether the surge in popularity of pre-prints represent a field-wide disaster or the coming of a populist revolution.
How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?
Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences. Funders are also getting involved.
Is your resolution for the new academic year to publish more? Here, 16 scholars give advice on pitching, editing and writing – and dealing with negative peer reviews.
The world's first open-source, standards-based annotation capability in an EPUB viewer.
Massive study of Nature journals shows that scientists from developing countries and less prestigious institutes more often prefer reviewers to be blinded to their identity.
The goal is to deliver an open-source submission and peer-review platform
