10,136 results found
  1. Meta-Research: Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

    Daniel G Hamilton et al.
    A survey of journals and editors in five areas of research - ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology - reveals a range of differences in their approach to peer review.
  2. Meta-Research: Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports

    Ivan Buljan et al.
    The linguistic characteristics of peer review reports are not influenced by research area, type of review or reviewer gender, which is evidence for the robustness of peer review.
    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease

    Research Culture: Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

    Gary S McDowell et al.
    Early career researchers commonly peer review manuscripts on behalf of invited reviewers, often without receiving feedback or being named to the journal.
    1. Computational and Systems Biology

    Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health

    Michael S Lauer et al.
    An analysis of peer review and funding outcomes of NIH research applications shows that funding disparities of topics preferred by African American Black investigators are not due to peer review preferences or biases.
  3. Meta-Research: A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018

    David G Pina et al.
    A study of more than 75,000 grant proposals to the European Union indicates that the outcomes of the peer review process remain stable in response to changes in the way that peer review is organized.
    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Bar graph

    Meta-Research: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article

    Darwin Y Fu, Jacob J Hughey
    An analysis of more than 70,000 journal articles, including 5405 that were first released as a preprint on bioRxiv, shows that articles with a preprint received 49% more attention and 36% more citations than articles without one.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Meta-Research: Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts

    Mathias Wullum Nielsen et al.
    A preregistered survey experiment spanning six disciplines has found weak evidence of bias in favour of authors from high-status countries and institutions.

Refine your results by:

Type
Research categories