Nature Makes Transparent Peer Review Standard for New Submissions
Initiative "supports Springer Nature's broader commitment to research transparency and open sharing".
Send us a link
Study shows how citizens evaluate scientific research proposals
Study shows how citizens evaluate scientific research proposals
New research by ESMT Berlin and Politecnico di Milano explores how non-experts assess scientific research proposals and reveals key implications for public participation in science funding.
Between Gift-Giving and Accumulation: Peer Review Economies in Psychology
Between Gift-Giving and Accumulation: Peer Review Economies in Psychology
Peer review is crucial for academic communities to ensure high-quality research. Drawing on 39 semi-structured interviews, the study investigates how reviewers for three publishing outlets in psychology experience the tension between community responsibility and various priorities of a more individual kind.
Variability and negligence: grant peer review panels evaluating impact ex ante
Variability and negligence: grant peer review panels evaluating impact ex ante
Building on extensive observations of grant review panels and interviews with panelists in five funding organizations, this study explores how such panels assess societal impact.
Use Evidence-based Methods for Decision-making on Complex Policy Issues
Use Evidence-based Methods for Decision-making on Complex Policy Issues
Regular consultations with academics and the use of evidence-based methods can lead to important findings and reveal blind spots in science policy, according to The Young Academy in its report Informed choices.
'Getting Paid to Review is Justice': Journal Pays Peer Reviewers in Cryptocurrency
ResearchHub Journal launches latest attempt to compensate referees for their labour.
If Generative AI Accelerates Science, Peer Review Needs to Catch Up
Studies have increasingly shown the widespread use of generative AI in research publications. Faced with the consequent uptick in the number of publications, Simone Ragavooloo argues that editors and reviewers should embrace AI tools to undertake the heavy lifting of statistical and methodological review and to allow them to focus on areas that require human expertise.
The Misplaced Incentives in Academic Publishing
Scientists who spend time peer-reviewing manuscripts don't get rewarded for their efforts. It's time to change that.
Lack of Experimentation Has Stalled the Debate on Open Peer Review
Open peer review is often discussed more in theory than practice. Drawing on evidence from a recent systematic review of open peer review studies, Tony Ross-Hellauer and Serge P.J.M. Horbach find many persistent questions around open peer review remain poorly examined and call for a more experimental approach to open peer review practices.
Towards Theorizing Peer Review
Academic peer review is seriously undertheorized because peer review studies focus on discovering and confirming phenomena, such as biases, and are much less concerned with explaining, predicting, or controlling phenomena on a theoretical basis.
Scientific Publishing: The First Year of a New Era
What happened when eLife decided to eliminate accept/reject decisions after peer review?
ELife's New Model: One Year On
Explore key milestones, achievements and findings from the first year of eLife's new model.
Highlight or Hide - What Role Should Peer Review Have in Researcher Development?
Highlight or Hide - What Role Should Peer Review Have in Researcher Development?
Peer review is, at heart, a process of validation - but how do you learn to peer review?
Distrust in Grant Peer Review - Reasons and Remedies
While peer review has long been perceived as the cornerstone of self-governance in science, researchers have expressed distrust in the peer review procedures of funding agencies.
Evaluation of Research Proposals by Peer Review Panels: Broader Panels for Broader Assessments?
Evaluation of Research Proposals by Peer Review Panels: Broader Panels for Broader Assessments?
This exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands provides insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings.
Science funding agencies say no to using AI for peer review
Concerns include confidentiality, accuracy, and "originality of thought".
Stop the Peer-Review Treadmill. I Want to Get Off.
Faced with a deluge of papers, journal editors are struggling to find willing peer reviewers.
The Rise and Fall of Peer Review
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
NIH Plans Grant-review Overhaul to Reduce Bias
Reviewers would no longer score researchers' expertise and institutions during grant evaluations for the US biomedical agency.
To Fix Peer Review, Break It into Stages
All data should get checked, but not every article needs an expert.
Scientific Publishing: Peer Review Without Gatekeeping
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.
ELife Ends Accept/reject Decisions Following Peer Review
eLife will emphasise the public peer review of preprints, restoring author autonomy and promoting the assessment of scientists based on what, not where, they publish.
Does Trust in Research Begin with Trust in Peer Review?
Does trust in research begin with trust in peer review across the whole ecosystem, and what does that look like for different communities and stakeholders?
Peer Review and Research Integrity: Five Reasons to Be Cheerful
Peer Review and Research Integrity: Five Reasons to Be Cheerful
Chris Graf (and colleagues) present five reasons to be cheerful about research integrity and peer review.
We Asked the Community: Is Research Integrity Possible Without Peer Review?
We Asked the Community: Is Research Integrity Possible Without Peer Review?
For an early start on Peer Review Week, we reached out to the SSP community to ask "Is research integrity possible without peer review?"
The Researchers Using AI to Analyse Peer Review
Anna Severin explains how her team used machine learning to try to assess the quality of thousands of reviewers' reports.
Has Peer Review Created a Toxic Culture in Academia?
It is suggested to revamp the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.
Journal Impact Factor and Peer Review Thoroughness and Helpfulness: A Supervised Machine Learning Study
Journal Impact Factor and Peer Review Thoroughness and Helpfulness: A Supervised Machine Learning Study
This study indicates that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.
ELife and PREreview Extend Partnership to Boost Community Engagement in Open Peer Review
ELife and PREreview Extend Partnership to Boost Community Engagement in Open Peer Review
As eLife moves towards a 'publish, review, curate' model that puts preprints first, the two initiatives will work together to promote diversity in open scholarly review.
Cracking the Code Review Process
What does it entail to perform a code review for Nature Computational Science?
×