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.
What’s wrong with peer review and article submission processes? What can publishers, authors, and reviewers do to improve the status quo?
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.
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?
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.
Rick Anderson interviews Kim Eggleton of IOP about the publisher’s recently announced move to 100% double-blind peer review.
Thoughts on BioMed Central and Digital Science’s report on what peer review might look like in 2030.
Jessica Polka looks at current technological capabilities for new innovations in peer review.
Peer Review Week is back! After a successful first year, planning for Peer Review Week 2016 is in full swing. This post will give you an outline of the week focusing on Recognition for Review.
Phill Jones interviews Joris van Rossum and Lois Jones about the STM working group on peer review taxonomy. What is it for and how will it work?
Mark Edington suggests that the scholarly communications community needs clear definitions and standards for how peer review is performed, and that transparent reporting on peer review should be a standard part of a publication.
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
When the stakes are scholarly, peer-review works well. What about when the stakes are life-altering?
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent peer review?