Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using […]
September 26, 2017
Peer Review: The ‘Least Worst’ Barrier to Bad Science
Read Now
September 13, 2017
Revisiting Erica Frank’s 1996 Review of Peer Review
Read Now
Can Artificial Intelligence Improve Peer Review and Publishing Itself?
The founder of StateReviewer outlines a future where humans are written out of the publication process by artificial intelligence. But is the goal of eradicating bias and other malignancies potentially opening the door to a new set of ills?
Fixing Peer Review, a Biologist’s View
Peer review clearly isn’t perfect, but rather than simply bypassing it and releasing even more information into an overloaded system, we should focus on making it better, says this life sciences editor. The first step is to reset and clearly state our standards for quality in both publishing and peer reviewing.
Recognition for Peer Review: Who’s Doing What?
To help celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, the steering committee for the commemoration asked the 20+ organisations on the group to tell us how they #recognizereview and what more they hope to do in future. Their responses show a clear understanding of the importance of peer review and a firm commitment to supporting more recognition for review in future.
Is Peer Review an Achilles Heel for Interdisciplinary Work?
Recent findings suggest interdisciplinary research is less likely to be funded than discipline-based research proposals, reports Gabriele Bammer, who argues different review processes may well be required to do justice to these different kinds of interdisciplinarity.
Does Competition Make Peer Review More Unfair?
Researchers decided to conduct behavioral testing on competition and the process of peer review. What they learned offers some prescriptions for improving peer review going forward.
I’m Looking Through You, Peer Review
Jon Tennant takes a look at the transformations underway aimed at tackling the widespread dissatisfaction with the system of peer review. He provides further background on the platform ScienceOpen, which seeks to enable a process of transparent, self-regulating, peer review, where knowledge sharing is encouraged, valued, and rewarded. By adopting a more transparent process of research evaluation, we move one step closer towards a fairer and democratic research process.
A Nobel Laureate Explains Peer Review’s Ins and Outs
The author of the new book ‘The Knowledge War’ discusses the intricacies of peer review as practiced, and concludes with a clarion call for reviewers and editors to remember their duties, not their interests.
Does Blind Peer Review Require a Makeover?
This piece was originally posted in Management INK, a SAGE blog highlighting top scholarship and catering to academics, researchers and practitioners in the […]
