Publish peer reviews

@article{Polka2018PublishPR,
  title={Publish peer reviews},
  author={Jessica K. Polka and Robert Kiley and Boyana B. Konforti and Bodo M Stern and Ronald D. Vale},
  journal={Nature},
  year={2018},
  volume={560},
  pages={545-547}
}
Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record.Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record. 
View on Springer
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
46 Citations
Background Citations
9

46 Citations

Peer Review beyond Journals

The EMBO Journal has extended its Transparent Process beyond journal confines to post referee comments alongside preprint versions of papers and to partner with Review Commons, a pre‐journal…

How to bring peer review ghostwriters out of the dark

Early career researchers are frequent and valuable contributors to peer review. Systemic changes that acknowledge this fact would result in ethical co-reviewing, peer reviews of greater quality, and…

Unlock ways to share data on peer review

Journals, funders and scholars must work together to create an infrastructure to study peer review to ensure the future of peer review in the profession is secure.

Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review

Significance Peer review is vital for research validation, but may be affected by “status bias,” the unequal treatment of papers written by prominent and less-well-known authors. We studied this bias…

Peer review for science funding: a review

Peer review is widely considered the gold standard for evaluating research and indeed it is the most widely means to allocate funds among competing proposals in the sciences. In this chapter we…

Publishing peer review materials

This article provides a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seeks feedback on these initial recommendations.

A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences

A "publish first, curate second” approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time.

On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

A perspective from an interdisciplinary group of ECRs on the value of preprints is provided and they advocate their wide adoption to advance knowledge and facilitate career development.

Progress and promise

As he prepares to step down as the Editor-in-Chief of eLife, Randy Schekman reflects on the origins of the journal, the eLife approach to peer review, and current challenges in scientific publishing.

Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

Recommendations are proposed to discourage unethical ghostwriting of peer review reports and encourage quality co-reviewing experiences as normal training in peer review.

References

SHOWING 1-8 OF 8 REFERENCES

Transparent peer review one year on

  • Art
    Nature communications
  • 2016
The majority of the authors' authors are opting in to publish reviewer reports of their papers, and the majority of their authors are choosing to publish reviews of their work.

Gender bias in the refereeing process

Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial

Although the possibility of posting reviews online was associated with a high refusal rate among potential peer reviewers and an increase in the amount of time taken to write a review, it is believed that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.

Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

The results of this cross-disciplinary survey show the majority of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice, and high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting.

Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals

It is found that women authors have been persistently underrepresented in high-profile journals and this underrepresentation has persisted over more than a decade, with glacial improvement over time.

A transparent black box

The EMBO Journal has a relatively high ‘first cut’, so that only manuscripts that fit within the journal's scope, that present a sufficiently striking advance and that have a real chance of being published with realistic further revision continue to the more time‐intensive peer review process.

What is open peer review? A systematic review

A pragmatic definition of open peer review is proposed as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.

Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi

  • Encourages good-quality,
  • 2018