The open access publication will use AI to identify the most pressing manuscripts in need of peer review.

Preprints from the first round of seroprevalence studies indicate that many more people have been infected with the virus than previously reported. Some of these studies also have serious design flaws.

Coronavirus experts are swamped with reading submissions, which they’re working through as quickly as possible.

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.