Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
Robert Harington and Melinda Baldwin discuss whether peer review has a role to play in uncovering scientific fraud.
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 the stakes are scholarly, peer–review works well. What about when the stakes are life-altering?
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”?
Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent 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 […]
AI has opened a new chapter in the saga of science and peer review. Today, guest author Prof. Nihar B. Shah explains how, if guided with integrity, AI can open galaxies of possibilities.
Five months to go till the sixth annual Peer Review Week, a global celebration of the critical role peer review plays in scholarly communications. This year’s theme is trust — learn more in this post by Alice Meadows
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.
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.
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
AI-generated content has been discovered in prominent journals. Should peer reviewers be expected to find AI text in manuscripts? Where in the publication workflow should these checks be done?
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.
Editors are quick to assume that reviewer fatigue is slowing them down; but one journal found that excessive invitations to review was not cited as a major reason why reviewers declined invitations.