4,377 results found
    1. Human Biology and Medicine

    Research: NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity

    Ferric C Fang et al.
    Peer review scores were poorly predictive of research project success in this large dataset, suggesting that reviewers cannot reliably predict which meritorious applications are most likely to be productive.
  1. Research: Gender bias in scholarly peer review

    Markus Helmer et al.
    Gender-bias in peer reviewing might persist even when gender-equity is reached because both male and female editors operate with a same-gender preference whose characteristics differ by editor-gender.
  2. Point of View: Making the most of peer review

    Nikolai Slavov
    Journals should publish referee reports and respond to well-founded concerns about papers after publication.
  3. Scientific Publishing: The eLife approach to peer review

    Randy Schekman et al.
    All editorial decisions at eLife are taken by working scientists in a process that emphasizes fairness, speed and transparency.
    Editorial
    Available as:
    • HTML
    • PDF
  4. Webinar invitation: eLife peer review explained, with Randy Schekman

    Join eLife Editor-in-Chief Randy Schekman for a discussion on eLife's peer review process in this live Webinar.
  5. Announcement: eLife joins the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

    By joining the Consortium, eLife hopes to save time for more authors, editors and reviewers in the peer review and publication of important neuroscience research.
  6. Webinar report: eLife's peer-review process explained

    In a recent webinar, eLife Deputy Editor Detlef Weigel talked in depth about our consultative peer-review process and its benefits for authors and reviewers.
  7. Early-career researchers: Views on peer review

    From evaluating statistics to the need for training, what do early-career researchers think about peer review?
  8. Meeting report: Visions and versions and the future of peer review

    Mark Patterson shares some perspectives after the recent ASAPbio meeting on Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer Review in the Life Sciences.
  9. Peer Review: Decisions, decisions

    Peter Rodgers
    Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences.

Refine your results by:

Type
Research categories