Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers
Five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used.
Send us a link
Emerging trends in peer review: a survey
"Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues.
Examining the predictive validity of NIH peer review scores
"Retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH."
The peer review drugs don't work
A process at the heart of science is based on faith rather than evidence, says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group from 1991 to 2004.
ORCID unveils plan to recognize efforts of peer-reviewers
Movement to publicly record peer-reviewing activity gains momentum.
eLife works with Publons to give credit for peer review
eLife has partnered with Publons to help reviewers receive recognition for their work.
The five deadly sins of science publishing
This editorial describes the problems with the process of preparing and publishing research findings, and with judging their veracity and significance, and then explains how we at Faculty of 1000 are starting to tackle the ‘deadly sins’ of science publishing.
Is peer review just a crapshoot?
How do reviewer recommendations influence editor decisions? And are Chinese authors treated fairly?
Rule rewrite aims to clean up scientific software
Nature Biotechnology asks peer reviewers to check accessibility of code used in computational studies.
What motivates people to review articles?
A survey of 307 reviewers of submissions to the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems to gain a better understanding of their motivations for reviewing.
What motivates people to review articles?
The case of the human-computer interaction community.
Editor quits journal over fast-track peer-review offer
An editor of Nature Publishing Group has resigned in a very public protest the recent decision to allow authors to pay money to expedite peer review of their submitted papers.
Publish first, get funding later
Biomedical researchers look to post-publication peer review to build grant funding case.
Living science: Triaging Shakespeare
What if every creative endeavor had to go through Peer Review?
Redefining scientific communication
"Peer review is mortally sick" according to Vitek Tracz.
Four reasons to feel good about the future of peer review
Behind the headlines are exciting initiatives that have the potential to, not just improve peer review, but optimize it for 21st century scholarship.
BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review
BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers possibly involving third-party companies selling the service.
Why you can't always believe what you read in scientific journals
When people talk about the flaws in the scientific process, they often raise the problem of peer review. Right now, when a researcher submits an article for publication in a journal, it's sent off to his or her peers for constructive criticism or even rejection.
The glaring paradox of impact vs. experience in biology journals
The professionally trained scientists who make decisions on biology papers at the big journals with the big journal impact factors have significantly less scientific experience and far weaker publication records than the editors of lower journal impact factor biology journals.
Wiley-Publons pilot program enhances peer-reviewer recognition
Wiley is piloting a partnership with Publons to give you official recognition for your peer review work. This partnership means you can opt-in to have your reviews for participating Wiley journals automatically added to your reviewer profile on Publons.
Will double-blind reviewing bring quality into focus?
Nature is offering anonymity for both reviewer and reviewed, but questions remain about value and effectiveness of the approach.
The big consequences of small biases
A simulation of grant submission and peer review shows that small biases in evaluation can have big consequences.
Nature journals offer
d[3]ouble-blind review [niWsUluYRUOIzRCEqHYY_nature-header.ed_400x400.png]
Oath market
Quality control in science journals is evolving, with a code of ethics in hot pursuit.
Scientists have the power to change the publishing system
We need to assess who gets funded based on research merit, not journal label.
What would happen if grant reviews were made public?
Researchers on social media discuss the potential impact of making peer review more transparent.
Evaluating your own paper
A few professional scientists have found a sneaky way to cheat their way up the career ladder. They evaluate their own research by pretending to be someone else.
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping
Evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work.
Fighting to protect its commenters anonymity
Opinion article by the founders of PubPeer.com on right to anonymity.
The peer-review scam
When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.
×