A review article containing contested claims about the tropical medicine drug as a COVID-19 treatment was listed as “provisionally accepted” on the journal’s website before being removed this week.

A response to Ada Hagan’s opinion piece suggesting that our study “compromises response to gender bias.”

A recent analysis that claimed no evidence of gender-based peer review outcomes fails to account for several factors.

An analysis of data from nearly 150 journals across scientific disciplines finds that, if anything, manuscripts authored by women are treated more favorably than those submitted by men.

The study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, has attracted widespread derision from researchers.

While some academics have called for compensation for assessing other scientists’ work, publishers haven’t warmed to the idea.

The changes, which affect the declarations authors have to sign and the peer-review process, have received a mixed response from the scientific community.

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.

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.