Category Archives: peer review

Don’t review articles that withhold data

Screen Shot 2016-01-16 at 19.55.22Journal editors can enforce replication policies. Authors can decide to work transparently. Most initiatives for open science and reproducibility agree that editors and authors areĀ  are the key actors to enforce the gold standard of research integrity. However, peer-reviewers can use their leverage as well: just say you will only review an article once the author provides the data.

Continue reading

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

Open peer review: What are the benefits and pitfalls?

Should journals publish review reports alongside a paper? At the meeting “The future of scholarly scientific communication” at the Royal Society it seemed that there is a general agreement: yes – we need more transparency. However, opinions were divided if reviewers’ names should be published as well.

Continue reading

Tagged , ,

Royal Society discusses changing peer review – but where does that leave early career researchers?

At the meeting “The future of scholarly scientific communication” opinions were divided about how to fix peer review. Should we abolish it, publish everything and let the world decide if it’s good science? Or do we need journals and editors to pre-select good quality work for us?

Continue reading