Motivations, training and support in peer review
This publication was supported by: Research Information Network, Society for Endocrinology, Vitae, Institute for Physics and Engineering in Medicine, The Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Elsevier, Sage, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation), Medical Research Council, The Physiological Society, Wiley, Society for General Microbiology, BioMed Central, PLOS, Taylor and Francis and Society for Applied Microbiology.
Reprinted in 2014 with support from BioMed Central, Elsevier, PLOS, Taylor and Francis, Wiley and PRE (Peer Review Evaluation).
A guide to peer review written for early career researchers.
This is a nuts and bolts guide to peer review for early career researchers written by members of the VoYS network. Using a collection of concerns raised by their peers, the VoYS writing team set off to interview scientists, journal editors, grant bodies’ representatives, patient group workers and journalists in the UK and around the world to find out how peer review works, the challenges for peer review and how to get involved.
http://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts.pdf
nature.com
This is a collection of Blog items, published on nature.com, dedicated to Peer Review.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Peer review in scholarly publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In recent years there have been an increasing number of reports and articles assessing the current state of peer review. In view of the importance of evidence-based scientific information to government, this report covers a detailed examination of the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications. Both to see whether it is operating effectively and to shine light on new and innovative approaches. In addition. it explores some of the broader issues around research impact, publication ethics and research integrity.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, appointed by the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited
This is a report into peer review in scientific publications.
Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the £4.6bn per annum funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms and ring-fenced against future pressures during the Spending Review period. This strong settlement for science and research is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy and promoting economic growth. The ring-fence around funding for science and research programmes, including for the first time HEFCE research programmes, provides stability and certainty to the research base.
