Gender Bias in Scholarly Peer Review
Using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process.
Send us a link
How scientists can reduce their carbon footprint?
Cutting down on long-distance air travel is the best way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by the scientific community.
The pleasure of publishing
The pleasure of publishing
The pleasure of publishing | When assessing manuscripts eLife editors look for a combination of rigour and insight, along with results and ideas that make other researchers think differently about their subject.
NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
Paper underscores the limitations of peer review as a means of assessing grant applications in an era when typical success rates are often as low as about 10% in the US.
Overflow in science and its implications for trust
‘Overflow’ has important implications for the integrity of modern biomedical science.
Living science: Triaging Shakespeare
What if every creative endeavor had to go through Peer Review? Indira M Raman considers the possibility.
Science hackathons for developing interdisciplinary research and collaborations
Science hackathons for developing interdisciplinary research and collaborations
Science hackathons can help academics, particularly those in the early stage of their careers, to build collaborations and write research proposals.
eLife works with Publons to give credit for peer review
eLife has partnered with Publons to help reviewers receive recognition for their work.
Living science: Triaging Shakespeare
What if every creative endeavor had to go through Peer Review?
Correcting the bias against interdisciplinary research
When making decisions about funding and jobs the scientific community should recognise that most of the tools used to evaluate scientific excellence are biased in favour of established disciplines and against interdisciplinary research.
Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications
Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications
Papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period.
×