After several pivots and failures, it may be time to finally say goodbye to portable peer review.
New detailed assessments of journals in the Global South will provide reassurance to authors and readers and guide editors on how to improve their journals.
Sara Rouhi from Altmetric reflects on the biases of the “research industrial complex”.
To round out Peer Review Week 2017, here’s a brief summary of some key takeaways from this year’s Peer Review Congress, held every four years.
Continuing our Peer Review Week celebrations, we asked representatives from three very different organizations – the American Historical Association, BioMed Central and The Royal Society – to share their thoughts on the evolution of peer review for journals from its beginnings through the present and into the future.
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
In anticipation of Peer Review Week, we’ve asked the Chefs their opinions on if and how peer review might change. Come tell us yours!
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
A new initiative has been launched to define best practices for simplifying transfer of submitted manuscripts across publishers and systems.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?
The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in peer review. Learn what the four speakers at the September 12 PRW panel session on this topic think this means and why it’s important.
Open online review has the potential to attract many more eyes to a new piece of research than conventional peer review. In reality, it may do far worse in attracting the eyes you want.
Algorithms behave in ways even their creators can’t understand, yet they dominate how we share and see information. Do we need a “Three Laws for Algorithms”?
Thoughts on BioMed Central and Digital Science’s report on what peer review might look like in 2030.