How to Make Scientists Into Better Peer Reviewers
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.
Send us a link
Nature Journals Announce Two Steps to Improve Transparency
Reporting summaries help authors to provide important details before review.
How Not To Be A Crank: Ten Rules For Not Being A Science-Dick
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’.
How a Partnership Over Annotation Software Fits Into Bigger Changes in Research Workflow
How a Partnership Over Annotation Software Fits Into Bigger Changes in Research Workflow
Elsevier announced a partnership with a nonprofit named Hypothesis, which makes annotation software that lets readers make margin notes on online articles.
Researchers Coy About Complete Review Transparency
Survey reveals reluctance to take open peer review to the limit.
Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century
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.
Researchers Debate Whether Journals Should Publish Signed Peer Reviews
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.
Meet the 'Data Thugs' out to Expose Shoddy and Questionable Research
Striking success has been had in catalyzing retractions by publicly calling out perplexing data and spotting anomalies in the literature.
Researchers Debate Whether Journals Should Publish Signed Peer Reviews
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.
Hypothesis and the Center for Open Science Collaborate on Annotation
Hypothesis and the Center for Open Science Collaborate on Annotation
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.
Early Career Researchers and Their Involvement in Peer Review
A discussion about the role and concerns of graduate students and postdocs in peer review.
Six Essential Reads on Peer Review
A collection of recent (and not-so-recent) literature on journal peer review.
Peer Review Survey Results
Results of the Peer Review in the Life Sciences survey conducted by ASAPbio.
Network Effects on Editorial Decisions in Four Computer Science Journals
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.
Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses
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.
Survey with Early-Career Researchers
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.
The Peer Review Process for Awarding Funds to International Science Research Consortia: a Qualitative Developmental Evaluation
The Peer Review Process for Awarding Funds to International Science Research Consortia: a Qualitative Developmental Evaluation
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
Journal Peer Review: A Bar or Bridge? An Analysis of a Paper's Revision History and Turnaround Time, and the Effect on Citation
Journal Peer Review: A Bar or Bridge? An Analysis of a Paper's Revision History and Turnaround Time, and the Effect on Citation
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.
Attitudes and Experience Amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers
Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines.
New Feature Aims to Draw Journals Into Post-Publication Comments on PubPeer
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.
An Ineffective and Unworthy Institution
Les Hatton and Gregory Warr give their two-pronged solution to the problems of peer review
Should Scientists Receive Credit for 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.
What Do We Know About Grant Peer Review in the Health Sciences?
What Do We Know About Grant Peer Review in the Health Sciences?
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.
Make Reviews Public, Says Peer Review Expert
Retraction Watch interviews Irene Hames.
The Future of Research Assessment
A collection that explores recent developments and debates in the UK and internationally, offering varied perspectives on the future of research assessment.
Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-Blind Peer Review
Single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.
The Fractured Logic of Blinded Peer Review in Journals
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.
A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review
A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review
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.
Expertise in Sciences and the Decision of What Is Publishable: A Noble yet Endangered Task
Expertise in Sciences and the Decision of What Is Publishable: A Noble yet Endangered Task
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?
×