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.
No matter what we call it, commenting on scholarly publications has a spotty record of success. Despite the mediocre results, journals, databases, and third party sites keep trying to get authors and readers to engage in this way. This post explores different models and the challenges online commenting faces.
Many of the finest scholarly publications can boast of exemplary editorial programs, but the advent of Gold Open Access, especially when mandated by funding agencies, may make this kind of editorial activity a thing of the past.
When does a preprint become a publication?
What constitutes peer review of a data set?
Most journals have adopted rapid publication processes, but with the rise of preprint servers and new trends among readers, maybe they can return to a slower, more considered pace.
Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent peer review?