It’s no secret that the peer-review process has been under stress in recent years, stresses exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Acquisitions editors for university presses (and journal editors, for ...

Yet not only were SCIgen papers regularly getting past the peer review process and into the pages of scientific journals, it was happening so regularly that, in the mid-2010s, journals deployed an ...

Distributed peer review’ of grants makes process more than twice as fast — and includes some cheat-prevention measures.

Peer review is the process by which academic researchers check each other's work for quality before publication. Peer review is analogous to reporters proofreading and fact checking each other’s ...

Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process, Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8, 1, (75-96), ...

First, the peer review process is not paid. Peer reviewers are doing so voluntarily. This makes requiring review by a statistician more challenging. Consider this along with the number of ...

The next time you’re invited to review a manuscript, actively consider your role in the process and your mindset. Think about peer review not as a battle or an argument to be won, but rather as ...

All Nature Portfolio journals, including Communications Biology, offer a double anonymized peer review option. Authors may choose this option at submission to remain anonymous to referees prior to ...

The peer-review process works provided the participants are invested in it. When a research finding is reported in a journal, journalists may need to review its editorial board.

Peer review is often seen as being too slow, too opaque, too biased and too likely to fail in its most important purpose: weeding out bad science Skip to main content Search ...

In our experience, peer-feedback or peer-review exercises offer a distinct opportunity in the classroom: students can benefit from both giving and receiving written input from others in all ...

Peer review is often misconstrued as a means of direct communication on the part of the reviewer when, in fact, it’s a collaborative, polyvocal process in which you have a strong voice.