Peer-to-peer
For peer-reviewers and about the peer-review process
Archive of all Peer-to-Peer Posts
- Trustworthiness of online encyclopaedias
- Stifling innnovation or filtering for excellence?
- Nature Precedings and open review, one year on
- NIH responds to critics
- Scientific discourse 2.0: Second Life
- No demonstrated gender bias in double-blind peer review
- Stem Cell paper and Insights are open for scrutiny
- Peer-review is crucial for Italy's research programme
- Hellinga story exemplifies weaknesses of the scientific process
- Paying taxes is not a qualification for assessing research programmes
- Refining and communication of science via blogs
- What the job of an editor is all about
- To many, blog posts are the face of science
- Judge's ruling protects confidentiality
- Sharing insights with researchers
- Will NIH's overhaul be cosmetic or curative?
- What constitues a good report?
- Role of blogs in communicating scientific knowledge
- Nature Neuroscience joins neuroscience peer-review consortium
- Many grants to few researchers
- Why there is not much online discussion of neuroscience research
- Open review at Scholarly Research Exchange
- Nature Nanotechnology on reviewer performance statistics
- Nature Cell Biology's peer-review process
- How to assess innovation across disciplines
- Working double-blind [corrected]
- Searching for duplicate publication
- Researchers like the peer-review system
- Double-blind peer review reveals gender bias
- Scientific American's open web experiment
- Becoming a reviewing doormat
- Developing peer-review standards
- A scientist's perspective on peer review
- Science news reporting and declarations of interest
- Grand unification or in miniature?
- How not to mix politics and science
- Nature's special peer-review for strong claims
- Confidential comments to the editor
- A round-up of review advice
- Blogging about peer-reviewed research
- Should regulation of research be left to peers?
- Open forums and pseudoscience
- Do you know how to referee a paper?
- Peer-review enters the courts
- True costs of peer-review
- Ask the editor at Nature Network
- Peer Review and Scientific Consensus
- Ethical duties cannot be outsourced
- NIH grant-assessment system under review
- NSF workshop on broader impacts of science and technology
- Nature Medicine guidelines for reviewers
- Post-publication review could aid skills and quality
- Correspondence on peer-review mentoring
- Prospect of the super-editor
- More on Nature Precedings and peer review
- Reviewer performance statistics
- Should authors' financial interests be known to reviewers?
- The ethics of journalism don't work for science
- Why the reluctance for open peer review?
- Inside the paper lifts the veil of peer review
- Nature Precedings is live
- Mentors of tomorrow
- NeuroLogica on peer-review
- A new form of post-publication peer-review
- Academic value systems in scholarly communication
- The cathedral and the bazaar
- Comment on Heredity papers
- NIH to examine peer-review process
- How can journals improve peer-review of cloning papers?
- New data at conferences, please
- NIST system for thermodynamic data standards
- Podcast on science publishing and the web
- Open journals' records to give reviewers their due
- Comments invited at Nature's Journal Club
- Reviewing appeals
- Ensuring anonymity in the Internet age
- Why cranks don't like peer review
- Necessary but not sufficient?
- Warnock's dilemma
- Should peer-reviewers be paid to reproduce findings?
- Rewards for peer reviewers
- Undergraduates learn peer-review
- A peer-reviewed blog journal?
- Catalogue of life passes the one million mark
- Peer review for traditional Chinese medicine?
- Public peer-review for stem-cell grants
- Peer review for academic blogs
- Shaping the message, distorting the science
- US Patent Office tries open peer review
- Nature Chemical Biology on the peer review process
- Politics and peer review in climate research
- Annals of Internal Medicine announces policy on research reproducibility
- Access to the literature and peer review
- Tracking quality of peer review
- Senate hearings on US agricultural research funding
- Science Library Pad on soft and hard peer review
- Peer review and standards in Pakistan journals
- Spot checks on digital images
- Nature peer-review editorial popular with readers
- Journal peer review and blogging
- Reviewers' guidelines for the Nature journals
- Making protocols available to peer-reviewers
- Earmarking versus peer review
- Gristmill on science in policy debates
- Cognitive Daily on open peer review
- Author and referee website launched
- "Content Matters" on Nature's peer review trial
- Richard Charkin on Nature's peer-review trial
- Report of Nature's peer review trial
- Peer-review of work by "interested parties"
- Peer to Peer is welcomed
- Standards of statistical analysis
- An editors' guide to peer review
- A new blog for peer reviewers
- Ethics: Trust and reputation on the web
- Perspective: Peer review of interdisciplinary scientific papers
- Perspective: The case for group review
- Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research
- Quality and value: The true purpose of peer review?
- Systems: Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature
- Perspective: 'I don't know what to believe'
- Technical solutions: Evolving peer review for the internet
- Ethics: Detecting misconduct
- Quality and value: How can we get the best out of peer review?
- Systems: Opening up the process
- Systems: Trusting data's quality
- Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review
- Technical solutions: Wisdom of the crowds
- Ethics: What is it for?
- Quality and value: Statistics in peer review
- Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal
- Perspective: Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists?
- Technical solutions: Certification in a digital era
- Ethics: Increasing accountability
- Quality and value: How can we research peer review?
- Systems: Reviving a culture of scientific debate