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.
Scientific Publishing: Progress and promise
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.
Features Editor, eLife, United Kingdom
Be the first to read new articles from eLife
Sign up for alerts
Please leave this field empty
Back to top