Quality control in science journals is evolving, with a code of ethics in hot pursuit

D-Lib Magazine

Nice summary!

An investigation into some scientific papers finds worrying irregularities

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals across different publishers. These m

Nature - When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

We created PubPeer in our spare time two years ago to improve peer review by using the power of the internet to accelerate the exchange of ideas and scientific progress. Now the foundation of our site is under threat.

The problem of fake peer reviewers is affecting the whole of academic journal publishing and we are among the ranks of publishers hit by this type of fraud. This has been covered by Retraction Watch several times, including here, here, here and here, as well as by the New York Times. The spectrum of ‘fakery’ has... Read more »

Cancer researcher says anonymous online comments on a research-sharing website cost him a new job at U. of Mississippi.

Added value.

Editorial: Nature and the BMJ, like all serious scientific journals, rely on peer review to establish the authority of the papers they publish, and peer review, it appears, is less reliable than it sounds

We’ve all heard the phrase “peer review” as giving credence to research and scholarly papers, but what does it actually mean? How does it work?Peer review is one of the gold standard

A lot has been said about peer review, recently by Frank here, here and here, by Richard here, here and here, by Sylvia and by others. So what more can I add?

The controversy over recent statins papers reignited debate over the peer review system.

AbstractPeer review holds a central place within the scientific communication system. Traditionally, research quality has been assessed by peer review of journal articles, conference proceedings, and books. There is strong support for the peer review process within the academic community, with scholars contributing peer reviews with little formal reward. Reviewing is seen as a contribution to the community as well as an opportunity to polish and refine understanding of the cutting edge of research. This paper discusses the applicability of the peer review process for assessing and ensuring the quality of datasets. Establishing the quality of datasets is a multifaceted task that encompasses many automated and manual processes. Adding research data into the publication and peer review queues will increase the stress on the scientific publishing system, but if done with forethought will also increase the trustworthiness and value of individual datasets, strengthen the findings based on cited datasets, and increase the transparency and traceability of data and publications.This paper discusses issues related to data peer review—in particular, the peer review processes, needs, and challenges related to the following scenarios: 1) data analyzed in traditional scientific articles, 2) data articles published in traditional scientific journals, 3) data submitted to open access data repositories, and 4) datasets published via articles in data journals.

Pontille & Torny describe the history of blind review in peer review process, arguing that each form of blind review has its own advantages and limitations.

Includes a lovely brief history of review methods and academe's career-assessment methods.