Tag: Peer Review

The editors’ role on peer review: how to identify bad referees

A theoretical peer-review model assesses the effects of referees’ unethical conduct on approving and rejecting articles and how journal editors can mitigate this behavior. What is at stake is the reliability, transparency and efficiency of pre-publication peer review. Read More →

Assessment of reproducibility in research results leads to more questions than answers

The ‘Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology’ initiative that has the purpose of assessing the reproducibility of preclinical research in Oncology was launched in 2013 as the result of a collaboration between the Center for Open Science and Science Exchange. The first results of the replication studies have just been published, however, their interpretation requires a careful approach. Read More →

Adoption of open peer review is increasing

In analyzing how the ‘peer review’ institution has emerged and evolved, it is possible to understand the current transition the assessment process is going through towards greater openness, transparency and accountability. Read More →

Is the reproducibility crisis exacerbated by pre-publication peer review?

A lack of scrutiny of articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the basis of a belief that pre-publication peer-review provides sufficient scrutiny, may well add to the relatively high number of articles in which results are presented that cannot be replicated. Read More →

Coupling Pre-Prints and Post-Publication Peer Review for Fast, Cheap, Fair, and Effective Science Publishing [Originally published in Michael Eisen’s blog “it is not junk”]

Leslie Vosshall and Michael Eisen have written the following white paper as a prelude to the upcoming ASAP Bio meeting in February aimed at promoting pre-print use in biomedicine. We would greatly value any comments, questions or concerns you have about the piece or what we are proposing. Read More →

Annotating the scholarly literature online

The Internet irreversibly changed the scholarly literature, the way it is published, assessed, disseminated, read, shared and cited. The peer review process has been evolving as a result of innovations facilitated by the Web. Among them, the post-publication review and open comments on online texts constitute a strong trend. Hypothes.is is an open source initiative that allows sharing openly – or privately – comments from researchers on scientific publications, contributing to their improvement. Read More →

Science (which needs communication) first, careers (which need selectivity) later

Science communication and career advancement via journal publications are too closely intertwined, to the detriment of science. The selectivity of journals slows, hampers, and distorts the communication process. Therefore, the processes of scientific communication and assessment for career advancement should be separated. As a welcome side effect, publishing, particularly publishing with open access, could be very much cheaper than it is currently (and the money saved used for research). Read More →

Enhancing peer review: guides, tutorials and good practice manuals

The validation of scientific reports before publication is an established practice, whose effectiveness and importance is recognized by authors, publishers, funding agencies and scientific societies around the world, in order to ensure the originality, quality, reliability, integrity and consistency of scholarly literature. What has long been the exclusive prerogative of publishers and editors now relies on innovative initiatives by organizations and societies dedicated to understand and improve the process. Read More →

eLife: an example of improved peer review

The online open access peer reviewed journal eLife publishes articles in biomedicine and life sciences. The nonprofit publication emerged from the ideas of its founders to create a publication model that met the needs of the academic community regarding editorial policy. The journal relies on a staff of Senior Editors made of renowned, experienced researchers, which are active in their fields. Its peer review process is innovative and aims to ensure clear assessment goals as well as constructive and consolidated comments made by Editor and reviewers. Read More →

Peer-review as a research topic in its own right

Over the last decade, the topic of scholarly communication has attracted the interest of researchers in all fields of knowledge. One of the most studied topics is the assessment of peer review, including its qualitative and quantitative aspects, its ability to detect and curb unethical practices, the appreciation of its methods of assessment and how technology can facilitate and improve the process, while meeting the challenges brought about by the age of digital publishing. Read More →