Advertisement

The Scientist

» peer review

Most Recent

image: Opinion: Reimagining the Paper

Opinion: Reimagining the Paper

By | May 2, 2016

Breaking down lengthy, narrative-driven biomedical articles into brief reports on singular observations or experiments could increase reproducibility and accessibility in the literature.

1 Comment

image: NIH Grant Reviews Don’t Predict Success

NIH Grant Reviews Don’t Predict Success

By | February 18, 2016

Peer reviewers’ assessments of funding proposals to the National Institutes of Health don’t correlate well with later publication citations, a study shows.

1 Comment

image: The Top 10 Retractions of 2015

The Top 10 Retractions of 2015

By | December 23, 2015

A look at this year’s most memorable retractions

2 Comments

image: More Peer Review Manipulation

More Peer Review Manipulation

By | October 13, 2015

Elsevier retracts nine papers from five of its journals after discovering made-up reviewer email addresses.

2 Comments

image: Debating the Value of Anonymity

Debating the Value of Anonymity

By | October 5, 2015

PubPeer responds to criticism that anonymous post-publication peer review threatens the scientific process.

1 Comment

image: Opinion: Pay-to-Play Publishing

Opinion: Pay-to-Play Publishing

By | September 3, 2015

Online scientific journals are sacrificing the quality of research articles to make a buck.

2 Comments

image: PubPeer Founders Revealed

PubPeer Founders Revealed

By | August 31, 2015

Neuroscientist Brandon Stell identifies himself as one of the creators of the post-publication peer review website, as he and his colleagues announce the nonprofit PubPeer Foundation.

1 Comment

image: Sage Pulls More Papers for Fake Peer Review

Sage Pulls More Papers for Fake Peer Review

By | August 20, 2015

The publisher is retracting 17 articles because of tampering with the peer-review process.

1 Comment

image: Another Mass Retraction

Another Mass Retraction

By | August 17, 2015

Springer is pulling 64 papers from 10 of its journals because of “fabricated peer-review reports.”

2 Comments

image: BMC Revises Retraction

BMC Revises Retraction

By | August 13, 2015

BioMed Central updates a retraction notice issued in March after finding out the authors did not influence the peer-review process.

0 Comments

Advertisement

Popular Now

  1. First Data from Anti-Aging Gene Therapy
  2. The Two Faces of Fish Oil
    Notebook The Two Faces of Fish Oil

    The discovery of a tumor-protecting role for a fatty acid found in fish oil has sparked debate about the product’s safety.

  3. The Zombie Literature
    Features The Zombie Literature

    Retractions are on the rise. But reams of flawed research papers persist in the scientific literature. Is it time to change the way papers are published?

  4. Locating Language within the Brain
Advertisement
SomaLogic
SomaLogic
Advertisement
LabX
LabX
RayBioTech