8,797 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.
    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.
  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.
  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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.

Refine your results by:

Type
Research categories