When peer review turns to trolling
In University Affairs, environmental scientist Ryan Bullock looks at his career-worth of experience subjecting his research to peer review: “The trolls have ...
All posts tagged with peer review
An ethnographic look at peer review recommends some big changes in training
Gemma Derrick in Nature: “Take peer pressure out of peer review”.
Time to publish peer referee comments?
A meeting at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute last week asked whether journals should start publishing the reviews they receive on papers. As reported by ...
Link: Referee troubles
Leonid Schneider posts a fairly typically depressing story from a peer referee from Frontiers in Neuroscience. The story is basically an editor pressuring th...
Link: The origin of peer review
Nature has an essay by Alex Csiszar recounting the first episode of peer review by the Royal Society, negotiated between William Whewell and John Lubbock on ...
Peer review under the microscope
The Frontiers Blog has provided a timely review of some of the new models of peer review that are being tried in different branches of scientific publishing:...
Should journals do post-pub review?
Nikolai Slavov recently published an opinion piece in eLife arguing the advantages of post-publication review of scientific papers: “Point of view: Making th...
Quote: Peer review as practiced today is a form of hazing
I’m citing this 2011 opinion piece by Hidde Ploegh (“End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments”) in a later post, but I wanted to single out this part:
What sequences deserve a peer-reviewed publication?
David Roy Smith asks whether sequencing mitochondrial DNA is still worth a scientific paper: “Opinion: Too Many Mitochondrial Genome Papers”.
On the importance of saying you’re wrong
Lior Pachter writes this week on his blog about the reactions and commentary around a post-publication peer review exercise he conducted on a 11-year-old pap...
Open peer review: a note from a physicist
I’d like to take note of this post by Sabine Hossenfelder, “Open peer review and its discontents”. She reflects on a growing cultural divide in science betwe...
Time to trash anonymous peer review?
This week’s Science magazine is organized on the theme of science communication. In addition to the John Bohannon “sting” operation I discussed in the last p...
Immediate publishing
Michael Eisen: “The Glacial Pace of Change in Scientific Publishing”.
Spreading preprints in population biology
Ewen Callaway reports on the increasing use of the arXiv preprint server by geneticists and biologists: “Geneticists eye the potential of arXiv”. With the ne...
"The print edition of any article is little more than a trophy version"
Jack Hitt writing in the NY TImes writes some thoughts on the way that online post-publication commentary and review are changing the authority of scientific...
Failure to replicate
What if you set out to replicate a series of 53 “landmark” clinical trials in cancer treatment and found you could confirm only 6 of them? If you’re C. Glenn...
Peer review in Castle Wolfenstein
“Peer fortress: The scientific battlefield” uses first-person shooter gaming characters to put a humorous spin on scientific peer review. Six characters that...
Is Nature Genetics something more than the GWAS Catalog?
I always look through the table of contents of Nature Genetics, which I have delivered to my inbox. Over the last couple of years, the journal has included a...
Scandal: grant reviewers favor work that is "original," "feasible"
OK, so that doesn’t sound like a scandal. Yet, that’s one of the themes of this Inside Higher Ed article: