The Rise and Fall of Peer Review
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
Send us a link
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
Reviewers would no longer score researchers' expertise and institutions during grant evaluations for the US biomedical agency.
All data should get checked, but not every article needs an expert.
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after 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 across the whole ecosystem, and what does that look like for different communities and stakeholders?
Chris Graf (and colleagues) present five reasons to be cheerful about research integrity and 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?"
Anna Severin explains how her team used machine learning to try to assess the quality of thousands of reviewers' reports.
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.
This study indicates that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.
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.
What does it entail to perform a code review for Nature Computational Science?
AfricArXiv, Eider Africa, eLife, PREreview, and the Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa) invite nominations for researchers in the fields of life sciences and medicine who will help co-create and then disseminate resources promoting best open peer-review practices in Africa.
ASAPBio offers set of principles and guidelines for preprint feedback.
Last year, nearly half of Nature authors agreed to publish anonymous referee reports.
Peer reviewing helped a graduate student to finally gain a sense of belonging within the research community.
Science benefits when junior scientists sign up as reviewers. It's also good for their careers.
The training course adds to ongoing efforts to promote greater diversity in scholarly review.
By design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of …
Manuscript Exchange Common Approach (MECA) committee members champion the benefits of standardizing the transfer of papers between journals.
A look at recognition in peer review, what's offered now and what's on the horizon. How does this affect the process?
In a collaborative open peer review process, the editor's role changes as much as the reviewer's role.
Open peer review has been growing steadily but its implementations take many different forms. This post takes a deep dive into the question of whether reviewers should be openly identified.
In this article the decision to collect gender data for Royal Society journals with the aim to identify and respond to potential biases in the peer review process is discussed.
This post explores how diversity plays an important role in the peer review system.
Will the plethora review options for preprints usher in a new age of duplicate peer review?
And what scientists learned they still needed it for.
There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers.
Lots of things are wrong with paying for peer review.