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.
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?
In the second post in our series to celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, guest author Tom Culley of Publons looks at the critical role played by editors in the peer review process and asks how we can better recognize it.
Revisiting a 2015 post to ask whether we are any closer to offering researchers credit for non-research activities?
A new study suggests that reference works can be created cheaply and effectively through only mildly organized collaborations. Have we been missing a critical contribution of peer-review? Does it suggest that post-publication won’t review won’t be very effective?
Revisiting a 2018 post — Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Our week of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2023 continues with an interview with Shaina Lange and Sue Harris of SSP’s DEIA Committee Outreach Subcommittee, about their work on a soon-to-be-published toolkit to build DEIA in peer review processes and editorial roles
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
Can social reputation metrics provide a meaningful incentive for researcher participation in peer-review and online commentary?
EMBO opens up the black box of peer-review. Is it worth the cost?
After wondering at the supposed burden of peer-review, more evidence emerged that it still works well, and is probably less taxing than other alternatives.
On the eve of a peer review seminar in Australia, Alex Christopher interviews CSIRO’s Andrew Stammer and Publons’ Tiago Barros on the current state of peer review.
Nature conducts an experiment in paid fast track peer review, and the research community responds with concerns over creating an unfair tiered system for publication.
In today’s Peer Review Week guest post, Joe Pold of PLOS interviews the senior editorial team of PLOS Computational Biology about their experience of mandating code sharing for the journal, and its impact on peer review
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.