Publishers have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures?
Cell Press announces an experiment with parallel peer review.
The research community needs to make peer review — and how the function of peer review is communicated — more systematic, nuanced, and standardized. Formal metadata such as taxonomies can advance the state of research and practice.
As we say farewell to another Peer Review Week, here are some handy resources created by members of the Organizing Committee that you can use all year round!
How do the concepts and the practices of trust and review function outside of a context specifically associated with scholarship, but still within the scholarly communications ecosystem? An interview with Roger Schonfeld.
Peer Review Week posts continue! Last week we asked the Chefs, and this week we asked the global community: “what would improve trust in peer review?”
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Dawn Durante of the University of Texas Press, looking at trust in peer review from the perspective of economics.
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Bahar Mehmani of Elsevier, who interviewed Professor Jeffrey Unerman about his work on the risks of self-referential peer review.
Chefs Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf tackle Peer Review Week 2020’s theme of Trust in Peer Review with this post on trust as both an ethic and a practice
Sylvia Izzo Hunter, Igor Kleshchevich, and Bruce Rosenblum look at the complexities of adding preprints to the citation record and suggest best practices going forward.
In support of #PeerRevWk20 theme #TrustInPeerReview, we asked the Chefs how trust in peer review could be improved. See what the said and add your thoughts!
Rick Anderson interviews Kim Eggleton of IOP about the publisher’s recently announced move to 100% double-blind peer review.
Revisiting a 2018 post — Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Revisiting a 2015 post to ask whether we are any closer to offering researchers credit for non-research activities?
Recognizing the many ways that researchers (and others) contribute to science and scholarship has historically been challenging but we now have options, including CRediT and ORCID.