A new twist on peer review

A new twist on peer review

eLife is conducting a trial in which authors will decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Mark Patterson, Randy Schekman
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	eLife Sciences Publications Ltd 2018-06-01
Series:	eLife
Subjects:	scientific publishing peer review research assessment
Online Access:	https://elifesciences.org/articles/36545

Similar Items

The eLife approach to peer review
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-04-01)

Building a sustainable future for eLife
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2016-09-01)

Progress and promise
by: Randy Schekman
Published: (2019-01-01)

How early-career researchers are shaping eLife
by: Mark Patterson, et al.
Published: (2018-03-01)

Room at the top
by: Randy Schekman
Published: (2017-10-01)

A year in the life of eLife
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-10-01)

Reforming research assessment
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-05-01)

Implementing a "publish, then review" model of publishing
by: Michael B Eisen, et al.
Published: (2020-12-01)

What makes an eLife paper in epidemiology and global health?
by: Mark Jit, et al.
Published: (2015-10-01)

The changing forms and expectations of peer review
by: S. P. J. M. ( Serge) Horbach, et al.
Published: (2018-09-01)

Making the most of peer review
by: Nikolai Slavov
Published: (2015-11-01)

Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports
by: Ivan Buljan, et al.
Published: (2020-07-01)

Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?
by: Drvenica Ivana, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01)

Peer review and publication delay
by: Fernandez-Llimos F, et al.
Published: (2019-03-01)

Recognizing the importance of new tools and resources for research
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2015-03-01)

Launching eLife, Part 1
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2012-10-01)

Why Peer Review?
by: Stewart Brower
Published: (2009-01-01)

Consultative review is worth the wait
by: Stuart RF King
Published: (2017-09-01)

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved]
by: Jonathan P. Tennant, et al.
Published: (2017-11-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-10-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-04-01)

Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia
by: Dekanski Aleksandar, et al.
Published: (2016-01-01)

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers
by: Fernandez-Llimos F, et al.
Published: (2018-03-01)

Peer review system: Professional ethics
by: Vučković-Dekić Ljiljana
Published: (2002-01-01)

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Susan Guthrie, et al.
Published: (2018-03-01)

Usos, limitaciones y prospectiva de la evaluación por pares
by: Faustino Moreno Ceja, et al.
Published: (2012-08-01)

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Sarah Holst, et al.
Published: (2018-08-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 3; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2018-01-01)

An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf]
by: Jelena Aleksic, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

The Open Science Peer Review Oath [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4ou]
by: Jelena Aleksic, et al.
Published: (2014-11-01)

Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5gj]
by: Richard Walker, et al.
Published: (2015-06-01)

Advancing research
by: Mark Patterson, et al.
Published: (2014-08-01)

Launching eLife, Part 2
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2012-12-01)

Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review
by: Fernandez-Llimos F
Published: (2014-03-01)

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5n1]
by: Emily Ford
Published: (2015-07-01)

Reviewing the review process : Investigation of researchers' opinions on different methods of peer review
by: Rebernig, Carolin Anna
Published: (2018)

How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?
by: Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, et al.
Published: (2020-03-01)

Anonymity of reviewing: Arguments for and against
by: Todorović Ljubomir
Published: (2002-01-01)

Scholarly information architecture, 1989 - 2015
by: P Ginsparg
Published: (2006-01-01)