Politics and the lack of compensation are among the factors that can undermine the peer review process, which is important to the quality of knowledge in academic journals.
In some cases, it can be difficult for academics to know which journals are not credible – but other times, people feel pressure to publish in these publications.
The open-access service PCI has opened the door for researchers to take charge of the review and publishing system, and move toward greater transparency in knowledge production.
Preprints are often free to use, making them more accessible for journalists to report on. However, as they have yet to undergo peer review, science journalists take a gamble on their accuracy.
Some open access journals — those that don’t charge their readers a fee — require that researchers pay to publish with them. Removing author fees helps more researchers to publish their work.
Not all Alzheimer’s research has been compromised by allegations of scientific fraud. But we should interrogate whether the governing bodies of research and drug approvals are truly effective.
Peer review is an essential part of academic publishing, but it can be exploitative, opaque and slow. There’s plenty journals, publishers and universities can do to make the system work better.
Peer review of research sounds like it should be a conversation between equals. Instead, it can be patronizing, demanding and simply unkind. A group of journal editors thinks this should change.
Preclinical studies are an important part of biomedical research, often guiding future trials in humans. Failure to replicate research results suggests a need to increase the quality of studies.
In most countries, ignorance about how to use evidence properly to inform decision-making has led to missteps during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s how to do better.
Preprints are scientific papers made available before being published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Australian Research Council has banned researchers from citing them in grant applications.
Mainstream academic publishing presents many obstacles to Indigenous authors, especially the conventional peer review process — but there are ways to overcome this.
Across our global network we are employing guidelines that we hope will allow readers to understand this approach we take to the reporting and analysis of research.
If expert advice on the pandemic turns out to be wrong, it will have dire consequences for how reliable scientific evidence is treated in other policy areas, such as climate change.