Can peer review be done faster, without compromising on quality? Biology Open has embarked on an exciting experiment to find out - Editor-in-Chief Dan Gorelick explains.
#PeerReview
6 posts6 participants1 post today
...then join us and become Crowd Preprint Review Lead!
More information and the signup form below 
https://asapbio.org/focus-areas/peer-review/crowd-preprint-review/
"A growing tide of fake papers is flooding the scientific record and proliferating faster than current checks can rid them from the system, scientists warn.
The source of the trouble is “paper mills,” businesses or individuals that charge fees to publish fake studies in legitimate journals under the names of desperate scientists whose careers depend on their publishing record.
The rate of fake papers generated by these operators roughly doubled every 1.5 years between 2016 and 2020, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“The entire structure of science could collapse if this is left unaddressed,” said study author Luís Amaral, a physicist at Northwestern University.
Paper mills look for weak links, such as lax verification protocols, in the typically rigorous publication machinery, then exploit those to place hundreds of fabricated studies with vulnerable journals or publishers, according to scientist investigators who have been tracking and cataloging their work.
It can be a costly mess to clean up.
Publishers who have become aware of suspected paper mill activity have been forced to retract hundreds of papers at once, and in some cases shut down journals."
https://www.wsj.com/science/scientific-journals-fake-paper-mills-92e42230
What if the “trouble finding reviewers" problem is just an "overzealous junk email filtering" problem?
Continued thread
To be clear: I don't have a problem with PhDs. I tried to get funding for one for years (unsuccessfully). But it feels deceitful to go along and pretend I have a PhD when I don't.
Sometimes (yes, this is not the first time people assume I have a PhD during #PeerReview) I think it's because people don't want to get reviewed by someone who /only/ has a MSc 
I have just finished doing #PeerReview of a research manuscript. It is extremely disappointing and frustrating how slow science advances 
I've been reviewing a manuscript with outdated methodology and definitions (amongst other issues). If you have not worked extensively in a field, you would not necessarily notice, as the referenced research is good. It's just that the field has advanced but some people are stuck to the old references or are unaware of the advances in the field.
Minor revisions! 
...and apparently our method to derive competitive interaction strengths from empirical observation is considered "extremely elegant". That's a nice vacation start! 
#AcademicChatter
#TheoreticalEcology
#EcologicalModelling
#PeerReview
#EcologicalNetworks
#preprint available here:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.25.577181
I problemi della Scienza – #scienza #ricerca #PeerReview ed #editori nella diretta di Giacomo Moro Mauretto di #EntropyForLife con Giovanni Spitale
Nella Live di stasera intervisterò Giovanni Spitale, ricercatore, amico e autore del libro: "Mi fa male la scienza" che ho avuto la fortuna di leggere. Con lui parleremo di diversi temi che in larga parte saranno anche definiti dalle vostre domande.
Back from the summer break and you have been very productive indeed: 61 manuscripts in our inbox!
So when you soon receive invitations to review, please keep in mind that for each of your manuscripts that go into review you need to review 2-3 manuscripts for the system to balance out. Thanks! 
@academicchatter @sociology #AcademicJournals #science #academica #peerreview
Recognizing and Rewarding #peerreview of Scholarly Articles, Books, and Funding Proposals: Recommendations by the CoARA Working Group on Recognizing and Rewarding Peer Review #assesment
https://zenodo.org/records/15968446
ZenodoRecognizing and Rewarding Peer Review of Scholarly Articles, Books, and Funding Proposals: Recommendations by the CoARA Working Group on Recognizing and Rewarding Peer ReviewIn this pre-endorsed publication, the CoARA Working Group on Recognizing and Rewarding Peer Review calls for systemic efforts to acknowledge, and appropriately reward, peer review as integral to the research ecosystem and a critical scholarly contribution--and provides recommendations on how to institute such reforms. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific method but remains largely invisible in research assessment. This document provides targeted recommendations for different stakeholder groups, including research-performing organizations (RPOs), research-funding organizations (RFOs), publishers/editors, and individual researchers, such as issuing verifiable certificates, providing protected time for peer review, developing digital infrastructures for crediting review activities (e.g. ORCID integration), and including peer review in performance reviews and job evaluations. The recommendations aim to start a much-needed conversation within academia on how to make visible this key pillar of the scientific endeavour.
Is Including Hidden #AI Prompts In Academic Papers Gaming The #PeerReview System — Or Keeping It Honest? - https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/25/is-including-hidden-ai-prompts-in-academic-papers-gaming-the-peer-review-system-or-keeping-it-honest/
Techdirt · Is Including Hidden AI Prompts In Academic Papers Gaming The Peer Review System — Or Keeping It Honest?It seems to be part of human nature to try to game systems. That’s also true for technological systems, including the most recent iteration of AI, as the numerous examples of prompt injection explo…
Event for the Stanford open source community!
Your research code matters. Let’s treat it that way.
On Aug 7, pyOpenSci + OpenSource@Stanford (#OSPO) will share how open peer review supports better tools, cleaner code, and academic credit.
Thursday, Aug 7
11AM MT / 10AM PT
www.pyopensci.org/events/pyopensci-stanford-ospo-peer-review.html
"Why publishing referee reports could backfire on public trust". My intuition would be the opposite: the current quality of non-open referee reports is often poor, demonstrating a failure of the #peerReview system, & leading to more non-trustworty papers. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02317-z
www.nature.comWhy publishing referee reports could backfire on public trustLetter to the Editor
Continued thread
I spoke with Alejandra Clark and Daniel Gorelick about the fast and fair peer review initiative from @BiologyOpen. They’re cutting down review times and compensating peer reviewers for their work! (2/5)
I'm peer reviewing a paper. I bought a printer, so I decided to print it and see how my work goes.
The amount of annotations and reflections increased significantly. Unfortunately, I'm a harder reviewer on paper than on digital.
New blogpost. The shitshow that results when a publisher fails to check up on their peer reviewers, with authors caught up in a nightmare process. https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2025/07/trouble-at-t-review-mill-how-mdpi-lets.html
#MDPI #peerreview #frau
deevybee.blogspot.comTrouble at t' (review) mill: How MDPI lets down authors I guess many readers will have had peer reviews where the reviewer doesn't appear to have understood, or even properly read, the paper they...
Ich vermute, mit dieser Begründung werde ich in Zukunft häufiger mal die Begutachtung von Einreichungen für wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften ablehnen (müssen).
#AcademicWriting #ScientificWriting #PeerReview
Hard to see how this public peer review slipped through the net with MDPI! Reviewer 1 blatant coercive citation. Reviewer 2 threw in the towel after being insulted https://pubpeer.com/publications/45AC07CC726D682CC04BBA62A60CF5
#peerreview #MDPI
pubpeer.comPubPeer - Exploring the Pathological Effect of Aβ42 Oligomers on Neura...There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Exploring the Pathological Effect of Aβ42 Oligomers on Neural Networks in Primary Cortical Neuron Culture (2023)
This is anti-vax propaganda. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. The best propaganda is always true. It does come across as cherry picked. After all. It's the Daily Mail, not the most reliable of sources. Also the use of the phrase 'linked to' always triggers my Spidey Sense.
"Scientists discover Pfizer COVID jab linked to major eye damage
(. . .)
The new study specifically examined how the vaccine affected patients' corneas, the clear front part of the eye that allows light to enter.
In 64 people, scientists in Turkey measured changes in the cornea's inner layer, called the endothelium, before taking the first Pfizer dose and two months after receiving the second."
So I looked up the study it's based on:
"Original Article
Evaluation of the Effects of mRNA-COVID 19 Vaccines on Corneal Endothelium"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09286586.2025.2522724
The DM article is basically a cut and past from the study itself. And yeah, it does purport to be peer reviewed. But the whole peer review process, and especially the publishing thereof has been scammed, faked, and lied about so often that I didn't just automatically trust the publisher, so I looked *them* up, too. Here's what I found:
"Taylor & Francis Online – Bias and Credibility
(. . .)
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/taylor-francis-online-bias-and-credibility/
Sounds good, but sounding good is proof of nothing, so I double checked the endorser:
"Is mediabiasfactcheck.com Legit?
With its medium trust score on our chart, we determined it has a low risk. We determined this score by aggregating 53 powerful factors to expose high-risk activity and see if mediabiasfactcheck.com is safe. Our in-depth review examines the website and its News & Blogs industry.
(. . .)
The Scam Detector’s algorithm gives this business the following rank:
70.4/100"
https://www.scam-detector.com/validator/mediabiasfactcheck-com-review/
So far, so good (sort of), so I checked out the reviewer with Trustpilot. Here's what they said :
"scam-detector.com
Reviews 529
Companies on Trustpilot can’t offer incentives or pay to hide any reviews.
(. . .)
Most reviewers were somewhat happy with their experience overall. Customers appreciate the service for helping them identify potential online scams, allowing them to avoid risky transactions. Many users have used the tool to check their own websites, with some initially receiving low scores. People value the platform as a first step to check websites, especially with the increasing sophistication of online scams.
However, some reviewers express concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the site's ratings. Several users report that their legitimate businesses were wrongly flagged as scams, leading to reputational damage. Some consumers mention that the website's assessment of their business is inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and false. A few reviewers also accuse the site of using questionable tactics, such as assigning low scores to pressure businesses into paying for a better rating."
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.scam-detector.com
Conclusions:
As always, I suggest that you do your own research and reach your own conclusions. I got you started. You can go on from there.
Personally, I feel it's probably true, but cherry picked. But what do I know, I barely squirmed out of reform school. My partner has a Ph.D in molecular biology. She said I'm probably right this time. I always defer to expert opinions, especially hers.
We both have taken the vaccines in question. Neither of us had any deleterious results that we know of. But I always prefer to err on the side of caution. Besides, this study agrees with the government, as well as many prominent anti-vaxxers. That alone makes it suspicious. So I scheduled an eye exam. I'll let you know how it turns out.
In the meantime, I heartily recommend that you get the jab. Everybody should get the jab. If this particular COVID vaccine weirds you out, not to worry. There are other brands available. Just saying.
Daily Mail · Scientists discover Pfizer COVID jab linked to major eye damage
Wow. AAAI 2026 is running a pilot “AI-Assisted Peer-Review Process”. Besides regular reviews, each paper will receive one extra LLM-generated review. No scores, but visible to reviewers and authors.
I take it that as an AI conference, AAAI was eager to try this out. Not looking forward to writing the author response to an LLM’s opinion on my paper, though. Also not sure how this will help reviewers.
https://aaai.org/conference/aaai/aaai-26/main-technical-track-call/
AAAIMain Technical Track: Call for Papers - AAAI