Skip to Content
eLife home page
Submit my research
(via ORCID - An ORCID is a persistent digital identifier for researchers)
Search the eLife site
Search by keyword or author
A series of articles exploring how journals, funding agencies and universities review papers, grant applications and people.
Sep 26, 2017
Illustration by vividbiology.com
Peer Review: Decisions, decisions
Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences.
Peer Review: Consultative review is worth the wait
Stuart RF King
Editors, reviewers and authors share their experiences of consultative peer review at eLife.
Peer Review: To fund or not to fund?
Funding agencies use many different criteria and peer review strategies to assess grant proposals.
Peer Review: Searching for the one
The views of peers are important when applying for a faculty position, but so are research plans and being a good 'fit'.
Peer Review: Rooting out bias
Bridget M Kuehn
Tackling unconscious bias is a major challenge for journals and the rest of the scientific community.
Research: Gender bias in scholarly peer review
Markus Helmer et al.
Point of View: Priority of discovery in the life sciences
Ronald D Vale, Anthony A Hyman
Human Biology and Medicine
Research: NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
Ferric C Fang et al.
Point of View: Making the most of peer review
Peer Review: The pleasure of publishing
Vivek Malhotra, Eve Marder
Scientific Publishing: The
approach to peer review
Randy Schekman et al.
Be the first to read new articles from eLife
Sign up for alerts
Please leave this field empty
Back to top