Partnering to streamline review   I’m happy to announce PLOS’ participation in a new service, Review Commons, that will provide a platform for rapid, objective, journal-independent peer reviews for manuscripts and preprints. We are excited to be part

PLOS Extends a Profound Thank You

0000-0002-8715-2896 To all our Reviewers, Guest Editors and Editorial Board members, thank you! 2018 marks the fourth year that we formally and publicly acknowledge our community of reviewers and editors for sustaining public access to

To Sign or Not to Sign: A Slice of Transparency in Peer Review

0000-0002-8715-28960000-0001-7318-5892 Scientists depend on the proper evaluation of research that creates the foundation for future work, and the public expects curated scientific content to be trustworthy. All forms of peer review, whether for ethical, technical

Live Blogging #PeerRevWk17 Day 3: Innovations in Peer Review and Scientific Publishing

0000-0002-8715-2896   Over 500 science journal editors, publishers, and meta-researchers are gathered in Chicago for the 8th Peer Review Congress (#PRC8), a once-every-4-years researchfest about “enhancing the quality and credibility of science”. I’m live-blogging – you can catch

Promoting reproducibility by emphasizing reporting: PLOS ONE’s approach

0000-0002-8715-2896 Promoting reproducibility by emphasizing reporting: PLOS ONE’s approach   Posted June 14, 2017 by Jenna Wilson in Editorial and Publishing Policy post-info AddThis Sharing Buttons above As we celebrate PLOS ONE’s ten year anniversary,

PLOS 2015 Reviewer Thank You

Thank-you-image-690x3202016 is shaping up to be a notable year for PLOS; it’s the organization’s 15th Anniversary of its founding as a nonprofit and the 10th Anniversary of the groundbreaking journal PLOS ONE. Before looking too far

How Did That Make It Through Peer Review?

Image credit: AJC ajcann.wordpress.comThe title’s question is one I’ve heard asked many times over the years. It has been uttered by senior colleagues, grad students, amateurs, and just about everyone else, too. The query is usually raised in

Is risk of Alzheimer’s Disease reduced by taking a more positive attitude toward aging?

Unwarranted claims that “modifiable” negative beliefs cause Alzheimer’s disease lead to blaming persons who develop Alzheimer’s disease for not having been more positive. Lesson: A source’s impressive credentials are no substitute for independent critical appraisal

Stalking a Cheshire cat: Figuring out what happened in a psychotherapy intervention trial

John Ioannidis, the “scourge of sloppy science”  has documented again and again that the safeguards being introduced into the biomedical literature against untrustworthy findings are usually inconsistent and ineffective. In Ioannidis’ most recent report ,

Research Reading Roundup: The value of pre-publication peer review, FASTR and more

The weather outside is frightful, but these links are so delightful. Without further ado, here are this week’s roundup of articles about science and academia. Over at Vox, Julia Belluz questions the value of pre-publication peer