Peer Review

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online …

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

Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print …

Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor

Accumulating evidence indicates high risk of bias in preclinical animal research, questioning the scientific validity and reproducibility of published research findings. Systematic reviews found low rates of reporting of measures against risks of …

Champions of Transparency in Education: What Journal Reviewers Can Do to Encourage Open Science Practices

As the field of education, and especially gifted education, gradually moves toward open science, our research community increasingly values transparency and openness brought by open science practices. Yet, individual researchers may be reluctant to …

Changing the Culture of Peer Review for a More Inclusive and Equitable Psychological Science

Peer review is a core component of scientific progression. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited, and who wants to (and is able to) advance in …

Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions

We can regard the wider incentive structures that operate across science, such as the priority given to novel findings, as an ecosystem within which scientists strive to maximise their fitness (i.e., publication record and career success). Here, we …

Discrepancy review: A feasibility study of a novel peer review intervention to reduce undisclosed discrepancies between registrations and publications

Undisclosed discrepancies often exist between study registrations and their associated publications. Discrepancies can increase risk of bias, and when undisclosed, they disguise this increased risk of bias from readers. To remedy this issue, we …

Mentorship practices that improve the culture of peer review

The current system of peer review drives racial and gender disparities in publication and funding outcomes and can suppress the perspectives of marginalized scholars. Established researchers have an opportunity to help to build a fairer and more …

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, …

Peer Review: Decisions, decisions

Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences. Funders are also getting involved. If you start reading about the subject of peer review, it won't be long before …