Fraud and Peer Review: An Interview with Melinda Baldwin
Robert Harington and Melinda Baldwin discuss whether peer review has a role to play in uncovering scientific fraud.
Robert Harington and Melinda Baldwin discuss whether peer review has a role to play in uncovering scientific fraud.
We know that peer review is important and that the hard work of reviewers should be recognized. Yet we still don’t really know how that recognition should work.
Continuing our series of posts for Peer Review Week 2021, guest authors Matt Giampoala, Randy Townsend, and Paige Wooden of AGU share their efforts to improve reviewer and editorial board diversity.
With the creation of Rubriq, co-founders Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier have broken new ground. Rubriq is an attempt to provide peer-review independent from journals.
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.
Cell Press announces an experiment with parallel peer review.
Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
Rather than relying on journal prestige and bibliometric indicators, universities should consider paying experts to conduct institutional peer review, report recommends.
With a new partnership with F1000, Wellcome embraces sketchy peer review standards, deep conflicts of interest, and financial support of a private, commercial enterprise. Worse, the entire thing seems redundant, avoidable, and unnecessary.
Chris Graf (and colleagues) present five reasons to be cheerful about research integrity and peer review.
eLife, BioMed Central (BMC), the Public Library of Science (PLoS), and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) will be forming a new peer review consortium based around the concept of what eLife calls “portable peer review.”
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.
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.
Today Angela Cochran revisits a post from 2016 on “revise and resubmit” decisions and what it means for authors and editors. Do new peer review models or cascading programs change the use of “revise and resubmit”?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!