By Michael B. Eisen Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, UC Berkeley [email protected], @mbeisen With the rapid growth of bioRxiv, biomedical research is entering a new era in which papers describing our ideas, exp...

By Dr. Stuart Taylor, Publishing Director, The Royal Society, London, UK Peer review has been a key part of the research communication system for centuries.

By Chris Pickett Journal peer review is a critical part of vetting the integrity of the literature, and the research community should do more to value this exercise. Biomedical research is in a period of hypercompetition, and the pressures of hypercompetition force scientists to focus on metrics that define success in the current environment—funding, publications and jobs.

Dear subscribers, Hope 2018 is off to a great start for you! We have a few exciting announcements: On February 7-8, tune in to asapbio.org/peer-review to watch a webcast of a meeting we’re co-hosting with HHMI and Wellcome Trust on how we can modernize and improve peer review.

By Tony Hyman and Ron Vale Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden Germany ([email protected]) and the University of California, San Francisco, United States  ([email protected]) Rapid changes in communication technol... The days when John Maddox (1) joined Nature and found submitted manuscripts sitting in piles forgotten on the floor have long gone, and no longer do we receive publications as bound printed volumes.  Those lucky enough to be part of a rich insti...

By Ron Vale, Tony Hyman, and Jessica Polka Summary We propose the creation of a scientist-driven, journal-agnostic peer review service that produces an “Evaluated Preprint” and facilitates subsequent publication in a journal. Introduction Scientists have a love-hate relationship with peer review.