Recent allegations of copyright violations against a professor who shared his own work on his website spark debate about ownership and whether peer reviewers should be paid.

Peer review process helps funders make decisions, but researchers say it is lacks transparency and takes up too much of their time.

A Publons study aiming to bridge the gap in data and insights into the peer review of research funding and grant applications.

A researcher offers three principles for providing constructive, respectful feedback

A study of the use of curricula vitae for competitive funding decisions in science suggests that bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.

Identification and synthetisation of studies that examine grant peer review criteria in an empirical and inductive manner.

As flaws in the peer review process are highlighted and calls for reform become more frequent, it may be tempting for some to denigrate and dismiss the contributions of the reviewers themselves.

Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect? 

The purpose of peer review is often portrayed as being a simple ‘objective’ test of the soundness or quality of a research paper. However, it also performs other functions primarily through linking and developing relationships between networks of researchers. 

Registered Reports emphasize the importance of the research question and the quality of methodology by conducting peer review prior to data collection. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication if the authors follow through with the registered methodology.

The country's major funding agency says the tool reduces the time it takes to find referees.

A new survey reveals the alarming extent of a practice that is universally considered unethical.