Double-Anonymous Peer Review Reduces Reviewer Bias, Finds Three-Year Trial
Peer review outcomes become similar across all author demographics when authors identities are not revealed to reviewers
peer review
Study Reveals Inequity in Journal Peer Review
The new study suggests implementing a double-blind review process to help mitigate biases
People Don’t Know What a Preprint Is. Here’s Why That Matters
Preprint findings aren’t final, and publicizing their results may cause distrust in science
PeerJ Introduces an Innovative Program to Reward Peer Reviewers
Contributors now earn PeerJ Tokens for reviewing and editing submissions to PeerJ journals
Comparing Preprints and Their Finalized Publications during the Pandemic
New studies find that majority of preprints are reliable and trustworthy
IOP Publishing Launches Portfolio-Wide Transparent Peer Review
All IOPP open access journals to have transparent peer review starting in February
New Peer Reviews of COVID-19 Research Highlight Promising, Warn of Misleading Studies
Recent COVID-19 studies ranked by reviewers as either strong, reliable, potentially informative, not informative, or misleading
Innovating the Peer-Review Research Process
Researchers find ways to modernize time-intensive process that plagues many academics
A Gait Analysis and Wake-Up Call to Peer Review Inefficiencies
Research team points out how bureaucratic inefficiency can be likened to that of the peer-review process associated with academic research in the health sciences
Reviewers of NIH Grants Cannot Distinguish the Good from the Great, Study Suggests
The researchers emphasize that, with billions of dollars at stake, additional research is needed on this vital system of funding and any potential improvements to the process