Ghostwriting in peer review: should journals recognise non-invited co-reviewers?
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?
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?
Peer Review Week 2019 is here!
Find out how to get involved in this year’s activities on #QualityinPeerReview.
Defining the role of the peer reviewer
The tasks and responsibilities of peer reviewers are examined as a step towards reaching a consensus on their role in biomedical publishing
Could preprint servers become self-organising peer review platforms?
Researchers propose that self-organising peer review for preprints could be the future of scholarly publishing.
Tracking innovations in peer review
Discover how to track the proliferation of initiatives aimed at improving the peer review process.
Self-citation by peer reviewers: when is it appropriate and how to safeguard against malpractice
Authors and editors are asked to be vigilant, and advice to peer reviewers is updated, amidst scandal of reviewer who asked for multiple self-citations during reviews.
Open peer review: pilot studies reveal promising findings
As an increasing number of journals pilot transparent peer review, data indicate that open peer review does not compromise the process – at least when reviewers can stay anonymous.
Is peer review coming out of the shadows?
Journals and funders pledge to publish peer review reports in a move to increase transparency of the publication process.