Kyle Siler describes the complexities of differentiating predatory and non-predatory publishing.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
A recent article in Nature reveals how dedicated data sharing infrastructure may be key to facilitating systematic research into peer review processes.
Publons data show many predatory journals enlist scholars to perform peer review – young researchers should be particularly wary.
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?
Scientific publishing is adapting to make research on COVID-19 and coronaviruses freely and rapidly available to all. But does the crisis highlight an opportunity for more fundamental reform?
PLOS ONE now offers Registered Reports, shifting peer review focus from results to the quality of study design. Is this part of the future of open science?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
Abstract ‘spin’ can distort a study’s findings and lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn. But just how prevalent is this problem?
Find out how to get involved in this year’s activities on #QualityinPeerReview.
The tasks and responsibilities of peer reviewers are examined as a step towards reaching a consensus on their role in biomedical publishing
As demand for transparency increases, many journals are adopting open peer review: learn more about best-practice guidelines for implementing such systems.
Researchers propose that self-organising peer review for preprints could be the future of scholarly publishing.
Discover how to track the proliferation of initiatives aimed at improving the peer review process.
Authors and editors are asked to be vigilant, and advice to peer reviewers is updated, amidst scandal of reviewer who asked for multiple self-citations during reviews.
As an increasing number of journals pilot transparent peer review, data indicate that open peer review does not compromise the process – at least when reviewers can stay anonymous.