4,896 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. Scientific Publishing: A new twist on peer review

    Mark Patterson, Randy Schekman
    eLife is conducting a trial in which authors will decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.
    Editorial
    Available as:
    • HTML
    • PDF
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Peer review: eLife trials a new approach

    eLife authors are being invited to take part in a trial in which they decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Peer review: eLife’s trial closes for submissions

    Authors were invited to opt in to a trial process in which they decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.

Refine your results by:

Type
Research categories