What constitutes peer review of a data set?
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Learn how and why different organizations are recognizing the work of their reviewers in this video to celebrate the theme of Peer Review Week 2016 — #RecognizeReview.
Today’s contribution to Peer Review Week 2016 is an interview with Maryann Martone of Hypothes.is, which examines the important — but often overlooked — role of annotation in peer review.
Next up in our series of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2016 is a conversation about peer review in the humanities and social sciences. Chefs Alison Mudditt and Karin Wulf, together with Mary Francis of the University of Michigan Press, discuss the differences and similarities between peer review in HSS and STEM disciplines, and between reviews for books and journals in HSS.
As we celebrate Peer Review Week, this post summarizes some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities. #PeerRevWk16
Looking forward to Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs “What is the future of peer review?” #PeerRevWk16
Stop thinking of peer review as a concept and start thinking of it as a toolbox.
Welcome to the first – but hopefully not the last – Peer Review Week: an opportunity to celebrate the fundamental role played by peer review in scholarly communications, and the many diverse efforts to improve and support it.
Peer review is fundamental to scholarly communications – not just journal articles, but conference papers, grants, promotion and tenure, and more. Four organizations plan to honor it through a Peer Review Week later this month – we hope you’ll join the celebrations!
The publication experience of authors may come down to a single factor: was the manuscript accepted?
Offering researchers credit for performing peer review seems, on the surface, like a good idea. But implementing such a scheme raises some problematic questions.
When sexist comments make it into a technical review of a research article, journal editors and publishers are wise to take a moment and think about processes for finding, responding to, and eradicating this behavior.
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
Shorter deadlines, email reminders, and cash incentives can speed up the peer review process and minimize unintended effects, a recent study suggests. Can it work for other disciplines?