Send us a link
Automated tools could speed up and improve the review process, but humans are still in the driving seat. Most researchers have good reason to grumble about peer review: it is time-consuming and error-prone, and the workload is unevenly spread, with just 20% of scientists taking on most reviews. Now peer review by artificial intelligence (AI) is promising to improve the process, boost the quality of published papers — and save reviewers time.
It is a great challenge to get Early Career Researchers (ECRs) involved in peer review and to get them the necessary training to be confident reviewers.
Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes significantly affect how faculty direct their own career and scholarly progression. Although RPT practices vary between and within institutions, and affect various disciplines, ranks, institution types, genders, and ethnicity in different ways, some consistent themes emerge when investigating what faculty would like to change about RPT. For instance, over the last few decades, RPT processes have generally increased the value placed on research, at the expense of teaching and service, which often results in an incongruity between how faculty actually spend their time vs. what is considered in their evaluation. Another issue relates to publication practices: most agree RPT requirements should encourage peer-reviewed works of high quality, but in practice, the value of publications is often assessed using shortcuts such as the prestige of the publication venue, rather than on the quality and rigor of peer review of each individual item.
A look at the system's weaknesses, and possible ways to combat them.
A manuscript is much more than words on paper. Painstakingly drafted, fuelled by coffee over long nights, then (constructively) dismantled by colleagues, re-drafted several times, and finally, assembled into something you're proud of. It is the culmination of months or years of hard work, and could potentially lead to recognition for you and your whole... Read more "
A new Research Square product for tracking peer review activity of a paper in submission.
We know that peer review is important and that the hard work of reviewers should be recognized. Yet we still don't really know how that recognition should work.
Scientists receive too little peer-review training. Here's one method for effectively peer-reviewing papers, says Mathew Stiller-Reeve.
Data underlying science’s quality control process is revealing worrying trends — and suggestions are pouring in on how to address the concerns.
A worksheet compiled from the advice of a number of journalsand publications. The aim of the worksheet is to give less-experiencedpeer reviewers a concrete workflow of questions and tasks to follow whenthey first peer-review.
How three scholars gulled academic journals to publish hoax papers on ‘grievance studies.’
Governing board of the evidence-based medicine group may now be dissolved entirely.
We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a roundup of articles about bias, diversity, and inclusion in peer review, by Alice Meadows, including eight lessons we can all learn from them.
The Global State of Peer Review is one of the largest ever studies into the practice of scholarly peer review around the world focusing on four questions: 1. Who is doing the review? 2. How efficient is the peer review process? 3. What do we know about peer review quality? 4. What does the future hold?
Scientists in emerging economies respond fastest to peer review invitations but are invited least.
Support for publication of reviewer reports has been mounting as part of a greater effort to inform the discussion on peer review practice.
Biomedical funders and ASAPbio call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record.
The acceptance rate for eLife manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes.
Open letter signed by many journals supporting the idea that publishing peer review reports would benefit the research community by increasing transparency of the assessment process.
Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record.
We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community.
Publons’ ECR Reviewer Choice Award celebrates early-career researchers' exceptional contribution to peer review, recognizing an individual who has been influential in the realm of peer review or has significantly contributed to improving the system.
Citizen science: crowdsourcing for systematic reviews looks at how people can contribute their expertise to scientific studies using new online platforms - even if they don’t think of themselves as researchers or scientists.
Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.
The problem with peer review is that, despite its rigor, it suffers from bias because reviewers are competing for the same recognition and resources.
Key areas of focus for tweaking peer review include making journal editors more directive in the process, rewarding reviewers, and improving accountability of editors, reviewers and authors.
Article covers basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use Open Peer Review to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.
Imagine using version control to track the process of research in real time. Peer review becomes a community-governed process, where the quality of engagement becomes the hallmark of individual reputations. All research outputs can be published and credited with not an 'impact factor' in sight.
How a process designed to ensure scientific rigor is tainted by randomness, bias, and arbitrary delays.
eLife authors are being invited to take part in a trial in which they decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.
