eLife shifts to publishing ”˜reviewed preprints’, ending accept/reject decisions
eLife hopes inclusion of open peer review reports and standardised assessments will help improve transparency and accessibility of research.
Does journal impact factor affect the quality of peer review?
Read about the results from an artificial intelligence analysis of over 10,000 peer review reports.
How to encourage constructive public feedback on preprints?
ASAPbio summarise the newly developed FAST principles, a set of best practices to foster engagement in public preprint review.
Should peer reviewer identities be revealed?
Read about the pros and cons of disclosing reviewer identities as part of the open review process.
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.
Steps to reduce bias in systematic review protocols
Systematic reviews are generally considered gold standard evidence in healthcare, but a founding member of Cochrane believes steps can be taken to increase transparency and reduce bias in their protocols.
Defining the role of the peer reviewer
The tasks and responsibilities of peer reviewers are examined as a step towards reaching a consensus on their role in biomedical publishing
New guidelines for journals advise how to implement open peer review
As demand for transparency increases, many journals are adopting open peer review: learn more about best-practice guidelines for implementing such systems.
Open peer review: pilot studies reveal promising findings
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.
Meeting report: summary of day 2 of the 2019 European ISMPP Meeting
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!