Missed ISMPP EU 2018? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
The argument for blinded peer review seems less and less plausible, argues Hilda Bastian in a recent post for PLOS blogs. She suggests that such blinding constitutes a trade-off between … Continue Reading Is blinded peer review fair?
A major factor in the under-representation of women in research, gender bias is widespread in scholarly activities, including publications. A report published earlier this year by the American Geophysical Union … Continue Reading The ‘networking effect’: how author networks can cause gender bias in peer review
Fake reviews continue to be a serious concern in medical publishing, putting data integrity and trust in the scientific community at risk. As recently reported by Retraction Watch, a new … Continue Reading New tool to identify fakes in the peer review process
Recently, F1000Research published the first article of their new Registered Report initiative. The publisher is the first to go a step further with this publication format, combining the Registered Report … Continue Reading Registered Reports: enhancing transparency and reproducibility in scientific publication
In an age of rapid sharing of online information, authors are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lengthy timeframes associated with scientific peer review. But what if artificial intelligence (AI) could … Continue Reading Is artificial intelligence the key to speedier peer review?
Crossref is a not-for-profit organisation that interlinks a variety of online academic content including articles, conference proceedings and data sets using Digital Object Identifier (DOI) technology. By doing so it … Continue Reading Crossref to manage DOIs for peer review content
Last month saw the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication take place in Chicago, Illinois. Journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers and researchers gathered to explore the quality … Continue Reading Roundup of the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication
This week (11–17 September) marks the return of Peer Review Week. Now in its third year, the theme of Peer Review Week 2017 is Transparency in Review. Some 29 organisations, … Continue Reading It’s Peer Review Week!
Organised by JAMA and The BMJ, in association with METRICS at Stanford, the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication will be held on 10–12 September 2017, in … Continue Reading Registrations now open: The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication
In a recent post on the BioMed Central blog, postdoctoral researcher Elodie Chabrol describes the frustration she felt upon realising that the slow pace of peer review would potentially delay … Continue Reading A frustrated scientist’s views on peer review
A major international publisher, Springer Nature, has retracted 107 papers after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. All 524 authors involved are from China. The news has … Continue Reading [VIDEO] Cancer journal retracts 107 Chinese papers over fake peer-reviews
Have you ever wondered what the journal editor’s viewpoint is on your article, or what happens once you send your manuscript to a journal? This webinar will provide an overview … Continue Reading [FREE WEBINAR] The peer review process – what happens when you send your manuscript to a journal
Preprints have become an increasingly popular way for researchers to make their work immediately available to the scientific community. Non-peer-reviewed articles can be uploaded to platforms such as arXiv, bioRxiv … Continue Reading Journals look to preprint servers to source content
Peer review is often regarded as a flawed process, yet it remains a fundamental principal of scientific publishing. At its core, peer review relies on the availability of researchers to … Continue Reading Majority of peer review performed by a minority of researchers
The process of peer review is not perfect. However, it is essential for the publication of reliable and high quality science, and for this reason, some journals have taken steps … Continue Reading Trial of transparent peer review yields positive results at Nature Communications