3,815 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. 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.
  6. Scientific Publishing: Launching eLife, Part 1

    Randy Schekman et al.
    The new open-access journal eLife has launched, making its first content available in PubMed Central. In addition to publishing science of the highest quality, the journal aims to improve both the peer-review process and the presentation of new research results.
    Editorial
    Available as:
    • HTML
    • PDF
  7. Scientific Publishing: Launching eLife, Part 2

    Randy Schekman et al.
    With a commitment to open access and innovation in peer review, eLife aims to publish important results in the life and biomedical sciences in a flexible digital format that allows authors to present their work in full, including the key data on which the conclusions are based.
    Editorial
    Available as:
    • HTML
    • PDF
  8. Scientific Publishing: A year in the life of eLife

    Randy Schekman et al.
    Improving the peer review process, overcoming the limitations of print journals and providing open access to the very best work in the life and biomedical sciences are three highlights of our first year.
    Editorial
    Available as:
    • HTML
    • PDF
  9. Consultative peer-review, from the reviewers’ perspective

    With the end of 2016 drawing near, we would like to take the opportunity to share the views of our reviewers.

Refine your results by:

Type
  • (232)
  • (3,583)
Research categories
  • (513)
  • (580)
  • (106)
  • (849)
  • (214)
  • (551)
  • (84)
  • (60)
  • (336)
  • (334)
  • (214)
  • (168)
  • (283)
  • (1,112)
  • (122)