Send us a link
Building on extensive observations of grant review panels and interviews with panelists in five funding organizations, this study explores how such panels assess societal impact.
Studies have increasingly shown the widespread use of generative AI in research publications. Faced with the consequent uptick in the number of publications, Simone Ragavooloo argues that editors and reviewers should embrace AI tools to undertake the heavy lifting of statistical and methodological review and to allow them to focus on areas that require human expertise.
Scientists who spend time peer-reviewing manuscripts don't get rewarded for their efforts. It's time to change that.
Open peer review is often discussed more in theory than practice. Drawing on evidence from a recent systematic review of open peer review studies, Tony Ross-Hellauer and Serge P.J.M. Horbach find many persistent questions around open peer review remain poorly examined and call for a more experimental approach to open peer review practices.
Academic peer review is seriously undertheorized because peer review studies focus on discovering and confirming phenomena, such as biases, and are much less concerned with explaining, predicting, or controlling phenomena on a theoretical basis.
Peer review is, at heart, a process of validation - but how do you learn to peer review?
While peer review has long been perceived as the cornerstone of self-governance in science, researchers have expressed distrust in the peer review procedures of funding agencies.
This exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands provides insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings.
Concerns include confidentiality, accuracy, and "originality of thought".
Faced with a deluge of papers, journal editors are struggling to find willing peer reviewers.
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
Reviewers would no longer score researchers' expertise and institutions during grant evaluations for the US biomedical agency.
All data should get checked, but not every article needs an expert.
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.
eLife will emphasise the public peer review of preprints, restoring author autonomy and promoting the assessment of scientists based on what, not where, they publish.
Does trust in research begin with trust in peer review across the whole ecosystem, and what does that look like for different communities and stakeholders?
Chris Graf (and colleagues) present five reasons to be cheerful about research integrity and peer review.
For an early start on Peer Review Week, we reached out to the SSP community to ask "Is research integrity possible without peer review?"
Anna Severin explains how her team used machine learning to try to assess the quality of thousands of reviewers' reports.
It is suggested to revamp the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.
This study indicates that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.
As eLife moves towards a 'publish, review, curate' model that puts preprints first, the two initiatives will work together to promote diversity in open scholarly review.
What does it entail to perform a code review for Nature Computational Science?
AfricArXiv, Eider Africa, eLife, PREreview, and the Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa) invite nominations for researchers in the fields of life sciences and medicine who will help co-create and then disseminate resources promoting best open peer-review practices in Africa.
ASAPBio offers set of principles and guidelines for preprint feedback.
Last year, nearly half of Nature authors agreed to publish anonymous referee reports.
