eLife’s ‘reviewed preprint’ model: results from the first year
Find out what happened in the year since eLife ended accept/reject decisions in favour of ‘reviewed preprints’.
Double blinding in peer review: does author anonymity have benefits?
Find out how anonymising author identity can make peer review more equitable.
Transparent peer review: are authors willing to publish referee reports?
Read about the results of Nature’s transparent peer review pilot and how it could benefit the research community.
How to encourage constructive public feedback on preprints?
ASAPbio summarise the newly developed FAST principles, a set of best practices to foster engagement in public preprint review.
Should peer reviewer identities be revealed?
Read about the pros and cons of disclosing reviewer identities as part of the open review process.
Is there gender bias in the peer review system?
The gender gap in publications is well documented, but does peer review contribute to this bias? A recent study investigated.
Turning the publication process on its head
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
Should researchers be able to suggest peer reviewers?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
New guidelines for journals advise how to implement open peer review
As demand for transparency increases, many journals are adopting open peer review: learn more about best-practice guidelines for implementing such systems.
eLife trial new approach to peer review
eLife is trialling a novel form of open peer review that gives authors more control over their response to reviewers.