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
Jan Seal-Roberts, Publishing Director at Adis, talks about the rapid growth of “predatory” publishers and the dangers they pose for the STM publishing community. This recording was made on 2 … Continue Reading [VIDEO] The perils and pitfalls of predatory publishers
A recent research study (NCT02739737) published as a letter in JAMA has investigated whether author prestige affects the outcome of peer review. The study was conducted at Clinical Orthopaedics and … Continue Reading Does author prestige influence peer review?
September 2016 saw the second ever ‘peer review week’, during which a range of activities, including webinars, interviews and social media events centred around the theme ‘Recognition for Review’ took … Continue Reading Using peer review to improve peer review
On 30 August 2016, the US patent office granted a patent entitled “Online peer review system and method” (US Patent No. 9,430,468) to the publishing company, Elsevier. In the patent, … Continue Reading Elsevier granted patent for online peer-review system
In a recent review from the New England Journal of Medicine, Stuart Pocock and Gregg Stone take a close look at the evaluation of “positive” clinical trials, providing readers with … Continue Reading Interpreting clinical trial results: is a positive primary outcome good enough?
Watch a snapshot of the findings from one of the largest research studies into peer review in recent years, examining authors, reviewers’ and journal editors’ opinions on the system at … Continue Reading [VIDEO] Peer review: a global view
Due to the human element, peer review, a critical component of the publication process, can be biased and is often inefficient. Drummond Rennie, a former president of the World Association … Continue Reading Can more be done to improve the peer review process?
Peer review is a fundamental yet often criticised part of the publication process. Peerage of Science is an innovative platform that has been designed to overcome some of the recognised … Continue Reading Peerage of Science: a new approach to peer review
A workshop organised by OpenAIRE, entitled ‘Open peer review: models, benefits and limitations’ was held in Germany earlier this month. Stephanie Harriman, Medical Editor at BioMed Central and co-Editor-in-chief of … Continue Reading Are we ready to accept open peer review?
Peer review is an integral component of quality assurance in the publication of scientific research, but what’s in it for the reviewer? An increasing number of junior researchers are finding … Continue Reading Peer review: what’s in it for the reviewer?
The standard of peer review has recently come under scrutiny after several investigations discovered suboptimal procedures and in some cases fraudulent behaviour. In an article in PLoS ONE, Jelte Wicherts … Continue Reading A tool to measure the transparency and quality of peer review