Earlier this year, an American Geophysical Union analysis of peer review in its journals revealed evidence of gender bias, with women being less likely to be invited to review than men despite being more likely to be the first author of an accepted paper. In this interview, Brooks Hanson (Senior Vice President, Publications) and former Data Analyst, Jory Lerback describe the original study and the AGU’s efforts to address this bias.
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
Citations and the metrics around their use are an important part of evaluation and promotion of science and scientists and yet, little attention is paid to them in the peer review process. In this post, Angela Cochran makes a call to critically review reference lists and develop standards around what should and should not be included.
After several pivots and failures, it may be time to finally say goodbye to portable peer review.
A new initiative has been launched to define best practices for simplifying transfer of submitted manuscripts across publishers and systems.
The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in peer review. Learn what the four speakers at the September 12 PRW panel session on this topic think this means and why it’s important.
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.
An overview of recent events and the current state of preprints in the scholarly communications landscape.
What constitutes peer review of a data set?
Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent peer review?
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?