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?
COVID-19 stimulates innovations in open science and publishing
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?
Is preregistering scientific research becoming mainstream?
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?
Should researchers be able to suggest peer reviewers?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
Can you trust an article’s abstract?
Abstract ‘spin’ can distort a study’s findings and lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn. But just how prevalent is this problem?
Peer Review Week 2019 is here!
Find out how to get involved in this year’s activities on #QualityinPeerReview.