[…] of institutions – in their reviewer pool, helping to address some of the diversity issues we currently see in journal peer review (Publons report ‘Global State of Peer Review’). To bridge the gap between preprint review and journal review, ASAPbio is […]
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?
Key insights on how peer review functions for a new journal, handling data on individual lives of people enslaved in the historical slave trade, that serves both academic and public audiences.
Rather than relying on journal prestige and bibliometric indicators, universities should consider paying experts to conduct institutional peer review, report recommends.
Chris Graf (and colleagues) present five reasons to be cheerful about research integrity and peer review.
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!
Peer Review Week 2018 takes place September 10-15. Find out more about the theme, how you can get involved, and what we will be doing to celebrate here on The Scholarly Kitchen in this post by Alice Meadows
I had the pleasure of speaking at the Annual STM Meeting yesterday in DC on a panel about Trends in Peer Review. My co-panelists included Annette Flanagin, Executive Managing Editor and Vice President, Editorial Operations, JAMA and The JAMA Network; John […]
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.
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.
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.
eLife’s recent announcement that it will reinvent itself as a “service that reviews preprints” has generated much discussion over recent weeks. But what are the primary drivers and goals, and what might we all learn from this bold experiment?
Today’s guest blogger proposes the “Continuum of Consensus” as a solution to shore up research integrity, peer review, and the public trust in scholarly research.
[…] preprint server is “the acceleration of research and providing unrestricted access to manuscripts before they enter an often-lengthy process of peer review.” The case of Covid has demonstrated this potential can be realized. Still, some publishers, editors and authors feel […]