3,566 results found
  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.
    Feature Article
    Available as full, typeset article htmlAvailable as authors' accepted manuscript pdf
    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.
    Feature Article
    Available as full, typeset article htmlAvailable as authors' accepted manuscript pdf
  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.
    Feature Article
    Available as full, typeset article htmlAvailable as authors' accepted manuscript pdf
  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 full, typeset article htmlAvailable as authors' accepted manuscript 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. eLife promotes early-career involvement in peer review

    With the help of our editorial board, eLife has identified nearly 300 outstanding early-career researchers to join our pool of potential peer reviewers.
  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. Increasing transparency in eLife’s review process

    At eLife, we think openness and transparency help to encourage more constructive behaviours, so we've investigated ways we can be more open in the peer-review process.
  8. 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 full, typeset article htmlAvailable as authors' accepted manuscript pdf
  9. 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 full, typeset article htmlAvailable as authors' accepted manuscript pdf

Refine your results by:

Research categories
  • (483)
  • (543)
  • (90)
  • (812)
  • (200)
  • (506)
  • (78)
  • (54)
  • (315)
  • (314)
  • (203)
  • (159)
  • (262)
  • (1,023)
  • (117)
Type
  • (236)
  • (3,330)