The Scientist

» peer review

Most Recent

image: Study: Peer Reviewers Swayed by Prestige

Study: Peer Reviewers Swayed by Prestige

By | September 27, 2016

Evaluators of mock submissions to an orthopedic surgery journal were more likely to recommend the publication of a manuscript from distinguished authors than one from anonymous ones.

1 Comment

image: TS Picks: September 26, 2016

TS Picks: September 26, 2016

By | September 27, 2016

World leaders agree to fight superbugs; researchers edit human embryos; peer reviewers’ motivations

1 Comment

image: Most Active Peer Reviewers Honored

Most Active Peer Reviewers Honored

By | September 26, 2016

The “Sentinels of Science” award recognizes especially productive peer reviewers.

1 Comment

image: Reviewing Results-Free Manuscripts

Reviewing Results-Free Manuscripts

By | September 20, 2016

An open-access journal is trialing a peer-review process in which reviewers do not have access to the results or discussion sections of submitted papers.

2 Comments

image: Even More Preprints

Even More Preprints

By | August 17, 2016

A new psychology-centric preprint server is slated to launch.

0 Comments

image: Open Letter Leads to Peer Review Changes

Open Letter Leads to Peer Review Changes

By | July 14, 2016

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research will reverse some of the recent changes to its grant-reviewing processes after protests from researchers.

0 Comments

Nearly 1,200 scientists are asking the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to undo recent changes to its grant-review process.

0 Comments

image: New Journal Scrutinizes the Research Process

New Journal Scrutinizes the Research Process

By | May 3, 2016

Studies in Research Integrity and Peer Review analyze ethics and quality in both science and publishing.

0 Comments

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.

3 Comments

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

Popular Now

  1. Major German Universities Cancel Elsevier Contracts
  2. Running on Empty
    Features Running on Empty

    Regularly taking breaks from eating—for hours or days—can trigger changes both expected, such as in metabolic dynamics and inflammation, and surprising, as in immune system function and cancer progression.

  3. Most of Human Genome Nonfunctional: Study
  4. Identifying Predatory Publishers
AAAS