{"id":3653,"date":"2018-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-01-11T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pl-asapbio.local\/six-essential-reads-on-peer-review\/"},"modified":"2025-03-28T21:38:15","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T21:38:15","slug":"six-essential-reads-on-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/six-essential-reads-on-peer-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Six essential reads on peer review"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In preparation for our meeting on <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/peer-review\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer Review in the Life Sciences<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> on February 7-9 at HHMI Headquarters, we\u2019ve collected some recent (and not-so-recent) literature on journal peer review. A full annotated bibliography can be found at the bottom of this post, and we invite any additions via comments. To make the list more manageable, we\u2019ve highlighted some of the most crucial content here. <\/span><span id=\"more-1749\"><\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">1. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, <\/span><\/i><b><i>6<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">:1151&nbsp;<\/span><\/i><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(doi:<\/span><\/i><a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.12037.2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> <i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">10.12688\/f1000research.12037.2<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">) <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This massive review from Jonathan Tennant et al represents a comprehensive discussion of the origin, evolution, and challenges surrounding modern peer review. Of particular note is Section 1, which offers a history of peer review and an overview of critiques of the system, and Section 3, which discusses how platforms like GitHub, Reddit, Amazon, and Stack Overflow could catalyze innovations in scholarly peer review.<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_1751\" style=\"width: 1010px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image4-2.png\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-1751\" class=\"size-full wp-image-1751\" src=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image4-2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1000\" height=\"896\" data-id=\"1751\" srcset=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image4-2.png 1000w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image4-2-300x269.png 300w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image4-2-768x688.png 768w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image4-2.png 624w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-1751\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">\u201cFigure 2. A brief timeline of the evolution of peer review: The revolution.<br \/>See text for more details on individual initiatives. The interactive data visualization is available at https:\/\/dgraziotin.shinyapps.io\/peerreviewtimeline, and the source code and data are available at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.6084\/m9.figshare.5117260 \u201c<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">2. What is open peer review? A systematic review<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; referees: 4 approved]. F1000Research 2017, <\/span><\/i><b><i>6<\/i><\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">:588 (doi:<\/span><\/i><a href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.11369.2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> <i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">10.12688\/f1000research.11369.2<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">) <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The very term \u201copen peer review\u201d means many different things to different people. It can refer to revealing reviewer identities or the content of their reviews, allowing reviewers to discuss the article with one another or the author, or a process in which reviewers don\u2019t need to be invited in order to offer feedback. Indeed, Tony Ross-Hellauer has identified 122 definitions for open peer review. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Fortunately for us, he\u2019s also distilled a schema of seven \u201ctraits\u201d of open peer review:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><i><b>Open identities:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Authors and reviewers are aware of each other\u2019s identity<\/span><\/i><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><b>Open reports:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Review reports are published alongside the relevant article.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><b>Open participation:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The wider community are able to contribute to the review process.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><b>Open interaction:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Direct reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, and\/or between reviewers, is allowed and encouraged.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><b>Open pre-review manuscripts:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Manuscripts are made immediately available (e.g., via pre-print servers like arXiv) in advance of any formal peer review procedures.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><b>Open final-version commenting:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Review or commenting on final \u201cversion of record\u201d publications.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><b>Open platforms (\u201cdecoupled review\u201d):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Review is facilitated by a different organizational entity than the venue of publication.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We\u2019ll use this taxonomy throughout our discussions on this blog and at the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/peer-review\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">meeting<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. <\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">3. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B (2017) Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS ONE 12(12): e0189311.<\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> <i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The taxonomy identified above was used in an online survey completed by over 3,000 scholars, 95.5% of whom authored an academic communication and 87.6% of whom had experience as reviewers. While the respondent pool skewed heavily toward earth and environmental sciences (41.6%), 14.6% of respondents were biologists and 14.5% were in the health sciences. Perhaps because this was an opt-in survey conducted by an organization devoted to open access, the respondents sampled were a bit <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosone\/article\/figure?id=10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311.g006\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">more cynical<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (but not dramatically so) about the current peer review process than people who had responded to a <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/publishingresearchconsortium.com\/index.php\/134-news-main-menu\/prc-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings\/172-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">previous study<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> conducted by Mark Ware for the Publishing Research Consortium.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One highlight of the report is Figure 8, reproduced below, which reports attitudes toward the seven traits of open peer review identified in Ross-Hellauer\u2019s F1000 paper. Respondents had largely positive views toward open interaction, open reports, and open commenting. Interestingly, all of the \u201ctraits\u201d save open identity were regarded more favorably than open pre-review manuscripts (ie preprints)! <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Given the <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.sciencemagazinedigital.org\/sciencemagazine\/22_december_2017?sub_id=pmvuhpRAODl6&amp;u1=20328494&amp;folio=1523&amp;pg=35#pg35\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">growth of preprints<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in the life sciences and other disciplines over the last few years, these data suggest that peer review might be ripe for even more radical change.<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_1750\" style=\"width: 1291px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-1750\" class=\"wp-image-1750 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1281\" height=\"915\" data-id=\"1750\" srcset=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2.png 1281w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2-300x214.png 300w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2-768x549.png 768w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2-1024x731.png 1024w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2.png 624w, https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/image3-2.png 110w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1281px) 100vw, 1281px\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-1750\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">\u201cFigure 8: \u201cWill \u201dX\u201d make peer review better, worse, or have no effect?\u201d. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311.g008\u201d CC BY<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">4. Peer reviews are open for registering at Crossref<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lin, Jennifer (2017) &nbsp;Peer reviews are open for registering at Crossref. <\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/www.crossref.org\/blog\/peer-reviews-are-open-for-registering-at-crossref\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/www.crossref.org\/blog\/peer-reviews-are-open-for-registering-at-crossref\/<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">During Peer Review Week this fall, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.crossref.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Crossref<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u2014the non-profit organization that issues DOIs for scholarly journal articles (and preprints)\u2014announced that it will also offer a type of DOI specifically for preprints. Registration <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.crossref.org\/blog\/peer-reviews-are-open-for-registering-at-crossref\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">opened<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in late October, and the accompanying <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/support.crossref.org\/hc\/en-us\/articles\/115005255706\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">documentation<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> suggests interesting and helpful use cases. For example, \u201ccontributors\u201d to the review can include (in addition to regular \u201creviewers\u201d) assistant reviewers, stats reviewers, or translators, and all may be anonymous. The metadata contains fields to keep track of whether the review occured pre- or post- publication, the reviewing round, and the license under which the review is released. And the review can be linked to the object being reviewed (which doesn\u2019t need to be a journal article).<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">5. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">van Rooyen Susan, Delamothe Tony, Evans Stephen J W (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial BMJ; 341 :c5729 <\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c5729\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/i><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c5729<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One barrier to driving change in peer review is that comparisons between different systems are often clouded by confounders such as different author and reviewer pools across journals or across time (in cases where policy has changed). <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> set a high standard for rigor in studies of peer review by conducting a series of randomized controlled trials in the early 2000\u2019s. In this one, members of the intervention group had their signed reviews posted online, while members of the control group did not. The authors found that:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cTelling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ\u2019s website had no important effect on review quality. Although the possibility of posting reviews online was associated with a high refusal rate among potential peer reviewers and an increase in the amount of time taken to write a review, we believe that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In 2014, the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ<\/span><\/i> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/349\/bmj.g5394\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">announced<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> that all research papers would be published with signed peer review reports, arguing that<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cSuch open peer review should increase the accountability of reviewers and editors, at least to some extent. Importantly, it will also give due credit and prominence to the vital work of peer reviewers. At present, peer review activities are under-recognised in the academic community. We hope that reviewers will find this increased visibility helpful when demonstrating the extent and impact of their academic work and that they and others will cite and share their reviews as a learning resource.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They came to this conclusion in spite of their acknowledgement that it might \u201cprovide \u201cmore scope for power relationships to favour \u2018the great and the good,\u2019\u201d\u201d as <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/341\/bmj.c6425?ijkey=e72fb9e6362d01c243159a6421bb92f991a79417&amp;keytype2=tf_ipsecsha\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">pointed out<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> by as Karim Khan.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">6. Why we don\u2019t sign our peer reviews<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yoder, Jeremy (2014). Why we don\u2019t sign our peer reviews. <\/span><\/i><a href=\"http:\/\/www.molecularecologist.com\/2014\/04\/why-we-dont-sign\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">http:\/\/www.molecularecologist.com\/2014\/04\/why-we-dont-sign\/<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As the authors of the BMJ editorial have acknowledged, making peer review (and especially the names of peer reviewers) transparent can complicate the human relationships that make up science, especially for reviewers who are junior or otherwise marginalized or vulnerable. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To get at some of these issues, Jeremy Yoder has compiled short pieces written by members of his community to explain why they don\u2019t sign peer review. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One anonymous postdoc writes,<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cI chose to be anonymous because I am relatively junior, although I am not sure at what point I would consider myself sufficiently senior to change my approach. I expect that my comments might be not taken as seriously if my position (and gender) were known. I also expect that my own comments will be slightly less critical if I reveal my name. Science, and peer review, are political processes and to claim otherwise (i.e., that authors and reviewers will act exactly the same without the protection of reviewer anonymity) seems out of step with the reality.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Personal connections are also important. Tony Gamble adds that it is especially difficult to reject manuscripts written by friends and colleagues, and Will Pearse has the opposite concern:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cMy concern is appearing sycophantic when I enjoy a paper, I\u2019m actually not worried about more negative reviews because I\u2019m always polite and constructive.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Given these concerns, what benefits are gained by removing or preserving anonymity in peer review? And is posting review reports (without reviewer names) similarly complicated by concerns for protecting authors?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We\u2019ll discuss this (and more) on <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/peer-review\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">February 7-9.<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Tune in to the webcast and join the <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/hashtag\/biopeerreview\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">discussion on Twitter with #bioPeerReview<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Further reading<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Compiled with Caitlin Schrein, HHMI<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1PN1GYST0fLuh0T6r7qlj2wiRh-dliuoj\/view?usp=sharing\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Download BibTex<\/a><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Studies<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bornmann, Lutz, R\u00fcdiger Mutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. \u201cA Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">PLOS ONE<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 5, no. 12 (December 14, 2010): e14331. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0014331\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0014331<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Meta-analysis suggesting that there is low inter-rater reliability between reviewers (Cohen\u2019s Kappa: 0.17).<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Glonti, Ketevan, Daniel Cauchi, Erik Cobo, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, and Darko Hren. \u201cA Scoping Review Protocol on the Roles and Tasks of Peer Reviewers in the Manuscript Review Process in Biomedical Journals.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ Open<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 7, no. 10 (October 1, 2017): e017468. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2017-017468<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Helmer, Markus, Manuel Schottdorf, Andreas Neef, and Demian Battaglia. \u201cResearch: Gender Bias in Scholarly Peer Review.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">eLife<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 6 (March 21, 2017): e21718. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.21718\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.21718<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One of two prominent 2017 demonstrations that editors select more male reviewers.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Lerback, Jory, and Brooks Hanson. \u201cJournals Invite Too Few Women to Referee.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Nature News<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 541, no. 7638 (January 26, 2017): 455. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/541455a\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/541455a<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One of two prominent 2017 demonstrations that editors select more male reviewers.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ortega, Jos\u00e9 Luis. \u201cAre Peer-Review Activities Related to Reviewer Bibliometric Performance? A Scientometric Analysis of Publons.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Scientometrics<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 112, no. 2 (August 1, 2017): 947\u201362. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-017-2399-6\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-017-2399-6<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Rooyen, Susan van, Tony Delamothe, and Stephen J. W. Evans. \u201cEffect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers That Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 341 (November 16, 2010): c5729. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c5729\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c5729<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Rooyen, Susan van, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Nick Black, and Richard Smith. \u201cEffect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers\u2019 recommendations: A Randomised Trial.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 318, no. 7175 (January 2, 1999): 23\u201327. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.318.7175.23\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.318.7175.23<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ross-Hellauer, Tony. \u201cWhat Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">F1000Research<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 6 (August 31, 2017): 588. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.11369.2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.11369.2<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This literature review distills over 100 partially conflicting definitions of \u201copen peer review\u201d into a taxonomy of seven traits.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Arvid Deppe, and Birgit Schmidt. \u201cSurvey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experience amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">PLOS ONE<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 12, no. 12 (December 13, 2017): e0189311. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This survey of over 3,000 respondents (almost 30% coming from the life sciences) demonstrates attitudes toward various open peer review traits such as open identities, open reports, etc.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tomkins, Andrew, Min Zhang, and William D. Heavlin. \u201cReviewer Bias in Single- versus Double-Blind Peer Review.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 114, no. 48 (November 28, 2017): 12708\u201313. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1707323114\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1707323114<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ware, Mark. 2015. \u201cPeer Review Survey 2015: Key Findings.\u201d 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/publishingresearchconsortium.com\/index.php\/134-news-main-menu\/prc-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings\/172-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/publishingresearchconsortium.com\/index.php\/134-news-main-menu\/prc-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings\/172-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings<\/a><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This 2015 survey conducted by a publishers\u2019 consortium offers a more conservative perspective than Ross-Hellauer\u2019s 2017 work.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Wilkinson, Jo. \u201cTracking Global Trends in Open Peer Review.\u201d Publons, October 27, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/publons.com\/blog\/who-is-using-open-peer-review\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/publons.com\/blog\/who-is-using-open-peer-review\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Commentary and reviews<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bastian, Hilda. 2017. \u201cThe Fractured Logic of Blinded Peer Review in Journals.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Absolutely Maybe<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). October 31, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.plos.org\/absolutely-maybe\/2017\/10\/31\/the-fractured-logic-of-blinded-peer-review-in-journals\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/blogs.plos.org\/absolutely-maybe\/2017\/10\/31\/the-fractured-logic-of-blinded-peer-review-in-journals\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bloch, Daniel. n.d. \u201cExpertise in Sciences and the Decision of What Is Publishable: A Noble yet Endangered Task.\u201d The Conversation. Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/expertise-in-sciences-and-the-decision-of-what-is-publishable-a-noble-yet-endangered-task-86339\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/theconversation.com\/expertise-in-sciences-and-the-decision-of-what-is-publishable-a-noble-yet-endangered-task-86339<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Cohen. 2017. \u201cThe next Stage of SocArXiv\u2019s Development: Bringing Greater Transparency and Efficiency to the Peer Review Process.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Impact of Social Sciences<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). October 16, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2017\/10\/16\/the-next-stage-of-socarxivs-development-bringing-greater-transparency-and-efficiency-to-the-peer-review-process\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2017\/10\/16\/the-next-stage-of-socarxivs-development-bringing-greater-transparency-and-efficiency-to-the-peer-review-process\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Commons Select Committee. n.d. \u201cPeer Review.\u201d UK Parliament. Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.parliament.uk\/business\/committees\/committees-a-z\/commons-select\/science-and-technology-committee\/inquiries\/peer-review\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.parliament.uk\/business\/committees\/committees-a-z\/commons-select\/science-and-technology-committee\/inquiries\/peer-review\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Epstein, Diana, Virginia Wiseman, Natasha Salaria, and Sandra Mounier-Jack. 2017. \u201cThe Need for Speed: The Peer-Review Process and What Are We Doing about It?\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Health Policy and Planning<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 32 (10):1345\u201346. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/heapol\/czx129\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/heapol\/czx129<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Falavigna, Asdrubal, Michael Blauth, and Stephen L. Kates. 2017. \u201cCritical Review of a Scientific Manuscript: A Practical Guide for Reviewers.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Journal of Neurosurgery<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, October, 1\u201310. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2017.5.JNS17809\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2017.5.JNS17809<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Flier, Jeffrey. 2016. \u201cIt\u2019s Time to Overhaul the Secretive Peer Review Process.\u201d STAT. December 5, 2016. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2016\/12\/05\/peer-review-process-science\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2016\/12\/05\/peer-review-process-science\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Golumbeanu, Silvia. 2017. \u201cIn Fermat\u2019s Library, No Margin Is Too Narrow.\u201d Nautilus. October 16, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/nautil.us\/blog\/in-fermats-library-no-margin-is-too-narrow\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">http:\/\/nautil.us\/blog\/in-fermats-library-no-margin-is-too-narrow<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Fermat\u2019s Library is a platform and online community for discussing scientific papers.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Gowers, Timothy. n.d. \u201cPeer Review: The End of an Error?\u201d TheTLS. Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.the-tls.co.uk\/articles\/public\/the-end-of-an-error-peer-review\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.the-tls.co.uk\/articles\/public\/the-end-of-an-error-peer-review\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Groves, Trish. 2010. \u201cIs Open Peer Review the Fairest System? Yes.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 341 (November):c6424. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c6424\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c6424<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hames, Irene. 2014. \u201cThe Peer Review Process: Challenges and Progress.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Editage Insights (30-12-2017)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, June. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hopfgartner, G\u00e9rard. 2017. \u201cWhat Makes a Good Review from an Editor\u2019s Perspective?\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 409 (29):6721\u201322. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00216-017-0648-4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00216-017-0648-4<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Khan, Karim. 2010. \u201cIs Open Peer Review the Fairest System? No.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 341 (November):c6425. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c6425\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.c6425<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">King, Stuart RF. 2017. \u201cPeer Review: Consultative Review Is Worth the Wait.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">eLife<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 6 (September):e32012. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.32012\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.32012<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Kuehn, Bridget M. 2017. \u201cPeer Review: Rooting out Bias.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">eLife<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 6 (September):e32014. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.32014\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.32014<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mayden, Kelley D. 2012. \u201cPeer Review: Publication\u2019s Gold Standard.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 3 (2):117\u201322<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Panter, Paige. n.d. \u201cPeer Review for Early Career Researchers: Your Basic Questions Answered | Wiley.\u201d Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"https:\/\/hub.wiley.com\/community\/exchanges\/discover\/blog\/2017\/12\/06\/peer-review-for-early-career-researchers-your-basic-questions-answered\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/hub.wiley.com\/community\/exchanges\/discover\/blog\/2017\/12\/06\/peer-review-for-early-career-researchers-your-basic-questions-answered<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Rodgers, Peter. 2017. \u201cPeer Review: Decisions, Decisions.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">eLife<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 6 (September):e32011. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.32011<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2017. \u201cOpen Peer Review: Bringing Transparency, Accountability, and Inclusivity to the Peer Review Process.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Impact of Social Sciences<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). September 13, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2017\/09\/13\/open-peer-review-bringing-transparency-accountability-and-inclusivity-to-the-peer-review-process\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2017\/09\/13\/open-peer-review-bringing-transparency-accountability-and-inclusivity-to-the-peer-review-process\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Schekman, Randy. 2017. \u201cScientific Publishing: Room at the Top.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">eLife<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 6 (October):e31697. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.31697\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.31697<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sipido, Karin R., Diane Gal, Aernout Luttun, Stefan Janssens, Maurilio Sampaolesi, and Paul Holvoet. 2017. \u201cPeer Review: (R)evolution Needed.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Cardiovascular Research<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 113 (13):e54\u201356. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/cvr\/cvx191\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/cvr\/cvx191<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Slavov, Nikolai. 2015. \u201cPoint of View: Making the Most of Peer Review.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">eLife<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 4 (November):e12708. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.12708\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.12708<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Staniland, Mark. n.d. \u201cIncreasing Transparency in Peer Review\u202f: Of Schemes and Memes Blog.\u201d Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ofschemesandmemes\/2017\/10\/12\/increasing-transparency-in-peer-review\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ofschemesandmemes\/2017\/10\/12\/increasing-transparency-in-peer-review<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tennant, Jon. 2016. \u201cWhat If You Could Peer Review the arXiv?\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">ScienceOpen Blog<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). April 6, 2016. <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.scienceopen.com\/2016\/04\/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/blog.scienceopen.com\/2016\/04\/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tennant, Jon. 2017. \u201cPeer Review Does Not Have a \u2018Gold Standard\u2019, but Does It Need One?\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Green Tea and Velociraptors<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). May 30, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/fossilsandshit.com\/peer-review-not-gold-standard-need-one\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">http:\/\/fossilsandshit.com\/peer-review-not-gold-standard-need-one\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A response to Mayden (2012), this blog post contains a helpful list of existing guidelines to promote best practicesin peer review.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tomkins, Andrew. n.d. \u201cUnderstanding Bias in Peer Review.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Research Blog<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"https:\/\/research.googleblog.com\/2017\/11\/understanding-bias-in-peer-review.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/research.googleblog.com\/2017\/11\/understanding-bias-in-peer-review.html<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Wilkinson. 2017. \u201cWriting a Peer Review Is a Structured Process That Can Be Learned and Improved \u2013 12 Steps to Follow.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Impact of Social Sciences<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (blog). May 17, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2017\/05\/17\/writing-a-peer-review-is-a-structured-process-that-can-be-learned-and-improved-12-steps-to-follow\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2017\/05\/17\/writing-a-peer-review-is-a-structured-process-that-can-be-learned-and-improved-12-steps-to-follow\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Wingfield, Brenda. n.d. \u201cThe Peer Review System Has Flaws. But It\u2019s Still a Barrier to Bad Science.\u201d The Conversation. Accessed December 30, 2017. <a href=\"http:\/\/theconversation.com\/the-peer-review-system-has-flaws-but-its-still-a-barrier-to-bad-science-84223\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/theconversation.com\/the-peer-review-system-has-flaws-but-its-still-a-barrier-to-bad-science-84223<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yoder, Jeremy. 2014a. \u201cWhy We Don\u2019t Sign Our Peer Reviews.\u201d April 9, 2014. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.molecularecologist.com\/2014\/04\/why-we-dont-sign\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.molecularecologist.com\/2014\/04\/why-we-dont-sign\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yoder, Jeremy. 2014b. \u201cWhy We Sign Our Peer Reviews.\u201d April 9, 2014. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.molecularecologist.com\/2014\/04\/why-we-sign\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.molecularecologist.com\/2014\/04\/why-we-sign\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Educational material<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cFocus on Peer Review \u2013 Nature Masterclasses.\u201d Nature Masterclasses. Accessed December 30, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/masterclasses.nature.com\/courses\/205\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/masterclasses.nature.com\/courses\/205<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Glonti, Ketevan, Daniel Cauchi, Erik Cobo, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, and Darko Hren. \u201cA Scoping Review Protocol on the Roles and Tasks of Peer Reviewers in the Manuscript Review Process in Biomedical Journals.\u201d <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">BMJ Open<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 7, no. 10 (October 1, 2017): e017468. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2017-017468\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2017-017468<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Panter, Paige. \u201cPeer Review for Early Career Researchers: Your Basic Questions Answered | Wiley.\u201d Accessed December 30, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/hub.wiley.com\/community\/exchanges\/discover\/blog\/2017\/12\/06\/peer-review-for-early-career-researchers-your-basic-questions-answered\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/hub.wiley.com\/community\/exchanges\/discover\/blog\/2017\/12\/06\/peer-review-for-early-career-researchers-your-basic-questions-answered<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cPeer Review Training: ACS Reviewer Lab.\u201d Accessed December 30, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.acsreviewerlab.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/www.acsreviewerlab.org\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cPublons Academy Supervisors.\u201d Publons. Accessed December 30, 2017. <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/publons.com\/community\/academy-supervisors\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">http:\/\/publons.com\/community\/academy-supervisors\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In preparation for our meeting on Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer Review in the Life Sciences on February 7-9 at HHMI Headquarters, we\u2019ve collected some recent (and not-so-recent) literature [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2512,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-peer-review"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3653"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3654,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3653\/revisions\/3654"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asapbio.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}