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
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
What uses for artificial intelligence (AI) might we expect outside of the publication workflow? Some answers to this question can be found through the lenses of sustainability, justice, and resilience.
Policies that formally give peer reviewers the option to officially invite a colleague to collaborate with them improve integrity, transparency, and offers a chance to give fair credit where it is due.
Peer Review Week is an annual global event exploring and celebrating the essential role of peer review. This year’s Peer Review Week theme is “Peer Review and the Future of Publishing.”
Danny Kingsley suggests that research integrity begins with the training researchers receive at university. Achieving Open Research and increasing reproducibility requires systematic research training that focuses specifically on research practice.
Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
Editors at The BMJ are lousy at predicting the citation performance of research papers. Or are they?
We round out Peer Review Week with a guest post by Erin Landis, Meghan McDevitt, and Jason Roberts of Origin Editorial reporting on the 2022 Peer Review Congress.
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.
Continuing the run-up to this year’s Peer Review Week (September 19-23) today you’ll hear the Chefs’ answers to the question: Is research integrity possible without peer review?
Learn about Elsevier’s recently launched Peer Review Workbench – a new tool for researchers conducting meta research – in this interview with Bahar Mehmani
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”?
Avi Staiman suggests revamping the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.
In today’s guest post, Hong Zhou and Megan Prosser of Atypon explore how new technology and new ideas — specifically around AI, Big Data, and Cloud computing – can advance our industry.