Predatory journal ‘safelists’ and ‘watchlists’: who decides?
Learn how predatory journals are identified, and why journal ‘watchlists’ and ‘safelists’ have their own pitfalls.
What motivates researchers to review papers?
A recent survey provides insights into the attitudes and motivations of reviewers. Can the findings help to improve the peer review process?
How COVID-19 is exacerbating gender inequality in scientific research
Find out more about how disproportionate care loads, exacerbated by the pandemic, are impacting women’s ability to participate in scientific publishing.
Post-production misconduct: an emerging trend in scientific fraud
Two articles explore how the use of metrics has enabled the evolution of new types of scientific fraud, including citation manipulation.
Researchers call for better adoption of open science in COVID-19 research
Researchers identify flaws in current COVID-19 research and publication processes, and provide solutions using Open Science principles
Going beyond authorship: redefining research recognition
Get up to date with the key improvements in research recognition, including information on contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT) and updates to ORCID.
Peer Review Week 2020 is here!
Find out how to get involved with this year’s activities examining trust in peer review.
Are standards required for preprint publishing platforms?
A recent BMJ editorial discusses the benefits and risks of the use of preprints during the current coronavirus pandemic.
COVID-19 sparks rapid change in the medical research landscape
COVID-19 has had an unprecedented global impact. Now, a Digital Science report asks how the research landscape has adapted to these extreme circumstances.
Preprint servers and the publishers embracing open peer review
Publishers show enthusiasm for preprints by allowing transfer from preprint servers to submission sites and by integrating preprint platforms into manuscript submission workflows.
Are peer review decisions arbitrary?
Mathematical model highlights the arbitrariness of peer review and finds that more innovative papers are less likely to be selected for presentation.
The challenge of defining predatory publishing
Kyle Siler describes the complexities of differentiating predatory and non-predatory publishing.
Turning the publication process on its head
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
Peer review research needs improved collaboration and infrastructure
A recent article in Nature reveals how dedicated data sharing infrastructure may be key to facilitating systematic research into peer review processes.
Peer review practices of predatory journals
Publons data show many predatory journals enlist scholars to perform peer review – young researchers should be particularly wary.
Ghostwriting in peer review: should journals recognise non-invited co-reviewers?
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?