A recent survey assessed the prevalence of editors altering peer review reports. Read about the results here.
Medical research without adequate pre-publication review could damage public trust in medical science
Recommendations from 3 leading medical communication organisations aim to protect the integrity of published scientific and medical research.
Read Ivan Oransky’s take on the retraction landscape and his perspectives on how to tackle research integrity issues in the future.
A recent survey provides insights into the attitudes and motivations of reviewers. Can the findings help to improve the peer review process?
Find out how to get involved with this year’s activities examining trust in peer review.
Mathematical model highlights the arbitrariness of peer review and finds that more innovative papers are less likely to be selected for presentation.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
A recent article in Nature reveals how dedicated data sharing infrastructure may be key to facilitating systematic research into peer review processes.
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
Find out how to get involved in this year’s activities on #QualityinPeerReview.
The tasks and responsibilities of peer reviewers are examined as a step towards reaching a consensus on their role in biomedical publishing
Researchers propose that self-organising peer review for preprints could be the future of scholarly publishing.
Discover how to track the proliferation of initiatives aimed at improving the peer review process.
Authors and editors are asked to be vigilant, and advice to peer reviewers is updated, amidst scandal of reviewer who asked for multiple self-citations during reviews.
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.