Editorial Material
Biology
Michael B. Eisen, Anna Akhmanova, Timothy E. Behrens, Jorn Diedrichsen, Diane M. Harper, Mihaela D. Iordanova, Detlef Weigel, Mone Zaidi
Summary: eLife is changing its editorial process to prioritize public reviews and assessments of preprints.
Editorial Material
Biology
Michael A. Taffe
Summary: Concealing the identity of the principal investigator helps reduce the success gap between white and African American or Black researchers in NIH grant applications, but it does not completely eliminate it.
Letter
Medicine, General & Internal
Hilary Humphreys
Summary: Those paying for peer review could ensure the conditions of the review are met, and editors and publishers should demand tighter timelines and more consistency and professionalism in the review process. Universities should provide formal support for peer review, and academics should be expected to contribute and be held accountable.
Review
Computer Science, Theory & Methods
Cornelius Ihle, Dennis Trautwein, Moritz Schubotz, Norman Meuschke, Bela Gipp
Summary: This article systematically reviews incentive mechanisms for decentralized networks and networked systems by analyzing prior literature reviews and primary research papers. The reviewed incentive mechanisms establish fairness, reward participation, and cooperative behavior, contributing to the functionality and security of the network. The article also highlights research gaps and deficiencies, providing recommendations for the application of incentive mechanisms in decentralized networks that share computational resources.
ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
(2023)
Review
Energy & Fuels
Esteban A. Soto, Lisa B. Bosman, Ebisa Wollega, Walter D. Leon-Salas
Summary: The proliferation of distributed energy resources has led to an increase in peer-to-peer energy trading, creating opportunities for collaboration between consumers and prosumers. While this can facilitate the use of renewable energies and achieve low-carbon energy transition, there are also significant challenges to overcome in this relatively new field.
Review
Clinical Neurology
Kenny Chiu, David M. Clark, Eleanor Leigh
Summary: This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the bidirectional relationship between peer functioning and social anxiety during adolescence. The findings showed a significant bidirectional association with social anxiety across three dimensions of peer functioning, supporting the hypothesis that peer functioning and social anxiety influence each other.
JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
(2021)
Review
Business
Shabeen A. Basha, Mohammed M. Elgammal, Bana M. Abuzayed
Summary: This study reviews the literature on online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, focusing on its development trends, influencing factors, and regulatory approaches. Future research can explore the situations in emerging markets and developing countries, as well as the impact of behavioral characteristics on P2P funding attributes.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
(2021)
Article
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling
Summary: In peer review, the evaluation of research proposal risks is a stronger predictor of scores than the evaluation of proposal strengths. Reviewer scoring leniency predicts overall and criteria scores. The interpretation of proposal risks contributes to reviewer scoring variability.
News Item
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Max Kozlov
Summary: The US biomedical agency has decided to stop scoring researchers' expertise and institutions during grant evaluations.
Editorial Material
Orthopedics
James H. Lubowitz, Jefferson C. Brand, Michael J. Rossi
Summary: Peer review in medical journals involves reviewers and editors evaluating submitted work, suggesting revisions for improvement, and granting approval for publication after meeting editorial standards.
ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY
(2021)
Letter
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
J. A. Garcia, Rosa Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. Fdez-Valdivia
Summary: The quality standards of a journal can limit the outcome of peer review by constraining the improvement of quality and reducing the motivation of reviewers to enhance the quality of their reviews. This phenomenon is known as quality censoring, which results in a zero probability of payment for reviewers due to the ignorance of these constraints.
Review
Education, Scientific Disciplines
Emerald Jenkins, Rita D'Aoust, Sabrina Elias, Hae Ra Han, Phyllis Sharps, Carmen Alvarez
Summary: Peer review of teaching is crucial for enhancing faculty confidence, improving teaching quality, and fostering discussion among colleagues. The development of a peer review process using a Five-Step Design for Six Sigma methodology could serve as a model for other higher education institutions to enhance teaching excellence and student experience in the face of evolving teaching platforms and student demographics.
NURSE EDUCATION TODAY
(2021)
Article
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Adam Day
Summary: Analyzing comments from peer-review referees can identify rates of duplication, including fraudulent behaviors such as fake accounts and copied comments. Searching for duplication is an effective method to uncover misconduct, but thorough investigation is necessary to confirm any wrongdoing.
Editorial Material
Behavioral Sciences
Christine E. Parsons, Rebekah B. Baglini
Summary: Neutral language is crucial in peer review to ensure objectivity and avoid personal biases in evaluating manuscripts. Examples of nonneutral linguistic and stylistic devices can lead to the reviewer's personal response overshadowing their objective assessment.
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES
(2021)
Article
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
J. A. Garcia, Rosa Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. Fdez-Valdivia
Summary: This paper examines the impact of incentives on review quality by paying reviewers and the influence of authors' payment decisions in the peer review process. The study finds that under a hybrid peer review model where authors decide whether to pay, the price and quality of optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing.
