In the wake of public questions about trust in science, Angela Cochran had a conversation with Dr. Jamie L. Vernon about the challenges of communicating science to the public and how the SciComm community could do better.
Three companies (Rubriq, Axios Review, and Peerage of Science) have working models for external peer review. Has any one of them found a model for success?
Paying a living wage for reviews could provide postdocs with a temporary career alternative. But it won’t come cheaply and it will likely result in an uncompetitive journal with little chance of success.
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
“Sound methodology” suggests an ideal match to a scientific question that never quite exists. So why do some publishers use it?
With everyone in a rush to get work published quickly, authors are sometimes torn on what to do when major revisions are requested. The post examines the pros and cons of seeing the process through, or cutting bait mid way.
Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper!
Learn how and why different organizations are recognizing the work of their reviewers in this video to celebrate the theme of Peer Review Week 2016 — #RecognizeReview.
Today’s contribution to Peer Review Week 2016 is an interview with Maryann Martone of Hypothes.is, which examines the important — but often overlooked — role of annotation in peer review.
Next up in our series of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2016 is a conversation about peer review in the humanities and social sciences. Chefs Alison Mudditt and Karin Wulf, together with Mary Francis of the University of Michigan Press, discuss the differences and similarities between peer review in HSS and STEM disciplines, and between reviews for books and journals in HSS.
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.
As we celebrate Peer Review Week, this post summarizes some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities. #PeerRevWk16
Looking forward to Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs “What is the future of peer review?” #PeerRevWk16
What should publishers know about researchers and their work? Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf follow up a post earlier this year about “Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know about Scholarly Publishing.”
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.