The time between submission and publication of articles in the field of microbiology has been increasing in recent years. In addition, editors are having to invite more and more reviewers to identify those willing to evaluate manuscripts. What are the implications of this for peer review? Available in Portuguese only. … Read More →
Some remarks on peer review and preprints [Originally published as the editorial in Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz vol. 118]
We may say that scientific publishing is now living under the “disruption of preprints”! Scientific editors must now think about two things: (i) a new concept of “publishing papers”, and (ii) how to proper (and innovatively) evaluate the contribution these freshly released papers might bring to society. … Read More →
Rethink peer review to make it sustainable
A recently published article discusses the need for a profound overhaul of peer review, as the current model proves to be no longer sustainable. Journal editors have difficulties finding reviewers willing to evaluate submitted articles, researchers discuss greater recognition or even remuneration to act as reviewers. Among the numerous proposed alternatives, the opening of peer review is presented as the most feasible alternative. … Read More →
Preprint review should be part of doctoral and postdoctoral training programs
Considering the significant growth of preprints in scholarly communication, as well as the emergence of preprint servers in all areas of knowledge, Richard Sever, assistant director of CSHL Press, proposes that (post-publication) evaluation of preprints be used to complement doctoral and postdoctoral training at academic institutions. … Read More →
Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment [Originally published by eLife in December/2022]
Funders and other research organisations are embracing reviewed preprints as an alternative way to assess researchers, and call on others to do the same. … Read More →
eLife ends accept/reject decisions following peer review [Originally published by eLife in October/2022]
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. … Read More →
Three takeaways from our July 19 Publish Your Reviews event
What are the benefits of open peer reviews on preprints, and why should researchers consider publishing their journal-invited reviews alongside preprints? ASAPbio fellows orgazined in July 2022 the event “Why Publish Your Reviews?” with the objective to answer this question. … Read More →
Supporting public preprint review through collaborative reviews – an update on ASAPbio’s crowd preprint review
ASAPbio has been supporting preprint feedback since 2021 through their crowd preprint review activities which seek to draw on the collective input of a group of commenters who each can comment on the preprint according to their level of expertise and interest. They are currently midway through their activities for 2022, which include Portuguese preprints from SciELO Preprints, and wanted to share an update on the progress. … Read More →
Announcing Publish Your Reviews
Today, we’re excited to launch Publish Your Reviews, an initiative encouraging reviewers to post their comments alongside the preprint versions of articles. We invite all researchers interested in promoting more open dialog around preprints to sign the pledge. … Read More →
PLOS reports on publishing Peer Review History
PLOS, a pioneer of open access publishing in the years 2000, reports the results of its open peer review policy implemented in 2019. Published Peer Review History is the result of the reviewer’s choice to sign their peer review and the author’s choice to publish the Peer Review History, which consists of several documents. … Read More →
What are preprints? [Originally published in DADOS’ blog in May/2021]
The traditional double-blind assessment model of scientific articles has been challenged in the last two decades by the so-called “preprint servers”. However, there are still many concerns in the Social Sciences about what preprints are and what changes they bring to the traditional framework of scientific assessment and publication. In this mini class, we seek to answer these questions from the experience of the journal DADOS. … Read More →
Editors opine on editorial policy and aspects of peer review
Peer review varies widely between journals and disciplines. A study recently published in eLife aimed to assess the posture of journal editors from five disciplines on their way of conducting peer review. The results suggest that peer review remains largely a closed practice, with some challenges from an ethical point of view. … Read More →
How to reduce the processing time of submitted articles: the experience of Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais
While the position of a scientific journal editor is interesting and rewarding, since it puts us in touch with the pulse of academic output, it also poses many challenges. It is necessary to give the journal a face, to guarantee the publication quality, to find reviewers willing to work anonymously and for free and to ensure the journal’s financial sustainability. This post deals with just one of the challenges: ensuring a quick response to the authors about the submitted manuscripts. … Read More →
Unlock ways to share peer review data
Peer review is the intrinsic process of scientific research. However, there are few systematic studies on this procedure, and it is not easy to gain access to management information administered by publishers. The PEERE project, funded by the European Community, would make this data available as a public good. … Read More →
Peer review is not just quality control, it is part of the social infrastructure of research [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in June/2019]
The purpose of peer review is often portrayed as being a simple ‘objective’ test of the soundness or quality of a research paper. However, it also performs other functions primarily through linking and developing relationships between networks of researchers. In this post, Flaminio Squazzoni explores these interconnections and argues that to understand peer review as simply an exercise in quality control is to be blind to the historical, political and social dimensions of peer review. … Read More →
Recent Comments