Lots of things are wrong with paying for peer review, according to Tim Vines and Alison Mudditt in the recent R2R conference debate
Three companies (Rubriq, Axios Review, and Peerage of Science) have working models for external peer review. Has any one of them found a model for success?
A flawed article claiming that manuscripts don’t change much between being preprints and published articles somehow makes it through peer review unchanged.
We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a roundup of articles about bias, diversity, and inclusion in peer review, by Alice Meadows, including eight lessons we can all learn from them
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 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!
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.
The idea of starting over with new peer review management system can make you break out in a cold sweat. Karen Stanwood offers her experience and lessons learned for those considering making a move.
Do the benefits of open peer-review outweigh the costs? A BMJ study argues “yes,” but there are caveats.
Simultaneously submitting an article to multiple journals is considered an ethical violation. But the growth of preprints means that many articles are undergoing simultaneous yet parallel peer review processes. Will duplicate peer review become the norm?
Despite recent criticisms, peer review remains central to scholarly communication – but identifying and maintaining a steady stream of trained and knowledgeable peer reviewers is increasingly challenging. With researchers under more pressure than ever to publish or perish, some journal editors would like to see more support and recognition for peer review from their institutions and funders.
What’s wrong with peer review and article submission processes? What can publishers, authors, and reviewers do to improve the status quo?
Open peer review hasn’t caught on in the humanities, but it has been part of ongoing experiments in humanities publishing. As the American Historical Review tries open review, what lessons can we take from previous experiments?
The Journal of Open Source Software was designed from scratch using the principles of open source and software design practices. This has both advantages and disadvantages, particularly with respect to elements of the traditional scholarly publishing ecosystem.
In a collaborative open peer review process, the editor’s role changes as much as the reviewer’s role. Editors share some insights about how this works at JOSS.