Over the past two decades, scientific publishing has undergone a technological and economic transformation that has opened the door to more unorthodox models and, unfortunately, predatory practices. Predatory publishing refers to journals and publishers that charge authors (very high fees) to publish, claim peer review and indexing practices that do not exist or are fraudulent, and prioritize quick revenue over scientific quality. … Read More →
How much time does the journal require from you?
The editor-in-chief formula presents the parameters for calculating the working hours required for the editor to meet the journal’s submission demand. It mainly takes into account the number of articles and the rejection rate, expanding knowledge about scientific editing by quantifying an activity that has historically been invisible. Available in Portuguese only. … Read More →
The dangers of using AI in peer review [Originally published in Hora Campias in December/2025]
Within my academic life, I am always on ‘both sides of the counter,’ as an author and as a reviewer. It is work of high responsibility because we have a commitment to the excellence of scientific information and to improving the article. Currently, authors may use genAI in preparing their manuscripts with certain caveats, but there are strict restrictions regarding its use in peer review. … Read More →
preLights: biology preprint server reviewed by young researchers from around the world
Preprints have been gaining attention and interest from the scientific community as a means to quickly disseminate research results, ensure recognition for discoveries, and, above all, receive feedback before submitting manuscripts to scientific journals. In 2018, the publisher The Company of Biologists established a biological sciences preprint platform called preLights, formed by young researchers to evaluate preprints and post comments online, which function as post-publication peer review. … Read More →
Development of a checklist to support peer review in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde: revista do SUS (RESS)
To improve and speed up the peer review of RESS, we created a checklist of 31 hierarchical items (critical, important, desirable), based on reasons for rejection and a review of the literature. We tested and improved it in peer review marathons; the evaluation of these tools will be presented at the international peer review congress. Available in Portuguese only. … Read More →
Structured questionnaires can make peer review more efficient
In order to make peer review more efficient, a study proposes adopting a standard form to be answered by reviewers, so that no important aspect of the manuscript’s evaluation goes unnoticed. Available in Portuguese only. … Read More →
How to reformulate scholarly publishing to face the peer review crisis
The time between submission and publication of articles in the field of microbiology has been increasing in recent years. In addition, editors are having to invite more and more reviewers to identify those willing to evaluate manuscripts. What are the implications of this for peer review? Available in Portuguese only. … Read More →
Some remarks on peer review and preprints [Originally published as the editorial in Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz vol. 118]
We may say that scientific publishing is now living under the “disruption of preprints”! Scientific editors must now think about two things: (i) a new concept of “publishing papers”, and (ii) how to proper (and innovatively) evaluate the contribution these freshly released papers might bring to society. … Read More →
Rethink peer review to make it sustainable
A recently published article discusses the need for a profound overhaul of peer review, as the current model proves to be no longer sustainable. Journal editors have difficulties finding reviewers willing to evaluate submitted articles, researchers discuss greater recognition or even remuneration to act as reviewers. Among the numerous proposed alternatives, the opening of peer review is presented as the most feasible alternative. … Read More →
Preprint review should be part of doctoral and postdoctoral training programs
Considering the significant growth of preprints in scholarly communication, as well as the emergence of preprint servers in all areas of knowledge, Richard Sever, assistant director of CSHL Press, proposes that (post-publication) evaluation of preprints be used to complement doctoral and postdoctoral training at academic institutions. … Read More →
Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment [Originally published by eLife in December/2022]
Funders and other research organisations are embracing reviewed preprints as an alternative way to assess researchers, and call on others to do the same. … Read More →
eLife ends accept/reject decisions following peer review [Originally published by eLife in October/2022]
eLife will emphasise the public peer review of preprints, restoring author autonomy and promoting the assessment of scientists based on what, not where, they publish. … Read More →
Three takeaways from our July 19 Publish Your Reviews event
What are the benefits of open peer reviews on preprints, and why should researchers consider publishing their journal-invited reviews alongside preprints? ASAPbio fellows orgazined in July 2022 the event “Why Publish Your Reviews?” with the objective to answer this question. … Read More →
Supporting public preprint review through collaborative reviews – an update on ASAPbio’s crowd preprint review
ASAPbio has been supporting preprint feedback since 2021 through their crowd preprint review activities which seek to draw on the collective input of a group of commenters who each can comment on the preprint according to their level of expertise and interest. They are currently midway through their activities for 2022, which include Portuguese preprints from SciELO Preprints, and wanted to share an update on the progress. … Read More →
Announcing Publish Your Reviews
Today, we’re excited to launch Publish Your Reviews, an initiative encouraging reviewers to post their comments alongside the preprint versions of articles. We invite all researchers interested in promoting more open dialog around preprints to sign the pledge. … Read More →
Recent Comments