The gender gap in publications is well documented, but does peer review contribute to this bias? A recent study investigated.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
As demand for transparency increases, many journals are adopting open peer review: learn more about best-practice guidelines for implementing such systems.
eLife is trialling a novel form of open peer review that gives authors more control over their response to reviewers.