Constructively critiquing the scientific literature should be an essential part of the postdoctoral experience, and early career researchers have shown that they are up to the task.

Training young scientists to review submitted manuscripts should be an academic exercise, not a facet of professional scientific publishing.

Meet some of the people featured in the January/February 2020 issue of The Scientist.

Half of early-career researchers say they’d participated in the peer review process with their mentors without getting credit.

As we await the announcement of the 2019 Nobel Prize winners, it’s time to question why female scientists still lag behind their male colleagues.

Its articles will include negative results, reproducibility studies, and peer reviewers’ names.

The standard system of separating figures, tables, and legends from the text is unnecessary and laborious.

It is a violation of publishing ethics to use the peer review comments of one journal to mature a manuscript and submit to another with a higher impact factor.

A memo distributed to employees of the US Department of Agriculture requires them to include a disclaimer that their peer-reviewed work doesn’t represent agency findings or policy.