Send us a link
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
Congratulations to Irene Hames, the winner of Publons' inaugural Sentinel Award - for outstanding advocacy, innovation or contribution to scholarly peer review.
Scientists hit back at a proposal to make it tougher to call findings statistically significant.
Here's a brief summary of some key takeaways from this year's Peer Review Congress, held every four years. A talk by the Swiss National Science Foundation was especially enjoyed.
Trust that reviewers will treat manuscripts received for peer review as confidential communications is an essential tenet of peer review. New results suggest that breaches of this trust do occur.
Transparency in Review, and other innovations - Research in progress blog
Hypothesis and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory are today announcing the selection of the Hypothesis open source annotation framework for the bioRxiv preprint service as their primary annotation mechanism.
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
With science needing to always be reviewed to be sure it is correct, using Post-publication peer review is useful for scientific accuracy.
Peer review infrastructure will arrive at Crossref in one month.
Once every 4 years editors, publishers, and meta-researchers assemble in Chicago for the Peer Review Congress - an intense researchfest about "enhancing the quality and credibility of science".
An introspective look at peer review, one we hope will be useful for future discussions on the topic.
