Category Archives: studies about peer review
Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud?
Is peer review a good way to weed out problematic papers? And if it is, which kinds of peer review? In a new paper in Scientometrics, Willem Halffman, of Radboud University, and Serge Horbach, of Radboud University and Leiden University, used our database of retractions to try to find out. We asked them several questions about … Continue reading Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud?
Posted by in studies about peer review, studies about retractions
What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts?
Peer reviewers, like authors, are supposed to declare any potential conflicts of interest. But what happens when they don’t? Take this case: In a court transcript from Feb. 23, 2017, Bryan Hardin testified that he was a peer reviewer on a 2016 paper in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which found that asbestos does not increase […]
The post What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts? appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Peer review in 2030: New report hopes it’s faster, more transparent, and more diverse
Over the decades, the concept of peer review has changed dramatically – so what does the future hold? That’s a question examined in a new report issued today by BioMed Central and Digital Science, based on discussions held during the SpotOn London conference. (Disclosure: Our co-founder Ivan Oransky spoke there.) We spoke with Elizabeth Moylan, Senior […]
The post Peer review in 2030: New report hopes it’s faster, more transparent, and more diverse appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in biomedcentral, studies about peer review
Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts. They’re the greatest! And winning!
Ever since Kellyanne Conway, counselor to U.S. President Donald Trump, used the term “alternative facts” on Meet The Press earlier this month, the term — an awful euphemism for falsehoods, as many have pointed out — has become a meme. And like every new field, alternative facts needs its own journal. Enter the Twitter feed for the […]
The post Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts. They’re the greatest! And winning! appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in studies about peer review
Do you calculate if you should accept an invite to peer review? Please stop, say journal editors
Scientists are always pressed for time; still, Raphael Didham of the University Western Australia was surprised when he fell upon a group of early career scientists using a spreadsheet formula to calculate whether one was obligated to accept an invitation to review a paper, based on how many manuscripts he’d submitted for review. “I recall […]
The post Do you calculate if you should accept an invite to peer review? Please stop, say journal editors appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Why don’t women peer review as often as men? Fewer invites and RSVPs, researchers say
Women don’t peer review papers as often as men, even taking into account the skewed sex ratio in science – but why? In a new Comment in today’s Nature, Jory Lerback at the University of Utah and Brooks Hanson at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) confirmed the same trend in AGU journals, which they argue […]
The post Why don’t women peer review as often as men? Fewer invites and RSVPs, researchers say appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in environmental science, geology, studies about peer review, united states
Dear Peer Reviewer: Could you also replicate the experiments? Thanks
As if peer reviewers weren’t overburdened enough, imagine if journals asked them to also independently replicate the experiments they were reviewing? True, replication is a big problem — and always has been. At the November 2016 SpotOn conference in London, UK historian Noah Moxham of the University of St Andrews in Scotland mentioned that, in the past, some peer […]
The post Dear Peer Reviewer: Could you also replicate the experiments? Thanks appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in studies about peer review, uk retractions
“My time and energy were stolen:” Peer reviewer reacts to retraction
When a former Stanford psychology researcher lost her fifth paper last year due to unreliable results, one researcher took particular notice: Martha Alibali at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Why? She had reviewed the 2006 paper, and took to social media to express her dismay at the result of the time and effort she spent on […]
The post “My time and energy were stolen:” Peer reviewer reacts to retraction appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in psychology, studies about peer review, united states
“Bats are really cool animals!” How a 7-year-old published a paper in a journal
The scientific literature has seen its share of child prodigies – such as a nine-year-old who published a study in JAMA, and a group of eight-year-olds who reported on bumblebees in Biology Letters. But Alexandre Martin of the University of Kentucky sought to help his seven-year-old son get published in a non-traditional way – by […]
The post “Bats are really cool animals!” How a 7-year-old published a paper in a journal appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in Learned Publishing, studies about peer review, united states, wiley
Reviewers may rate papers differently when blinded to authors’ identities, new study says
Although previous research has suggested peer reviewers are not influenced by knowing the authors’ identity and affiliation, a new Research Letter published today in JAMA suggests otherwise. In “Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige,” Kanu Okike at Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center in Hawaii and his colleagues created a fake manuscript […]
The post Reviewers may rate papers differently when blinded to authors’ identities, new study says appeared first on Retraction Watch.