Randomizing parts of grant decision-making increases diversity and reduces costs, argue some researchers.Credit: Andrew Angelov/Alamy Rachel Heyard’s job was to find a signal in the noise, but the trouble was how often there wasn’t one. As a biostatistician in the data team at the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) in Bern, Switzerland’s main public research
Credit: Javier Zayas/Getty Articles with publicly available peer review reports are less likely to be retracted than those without public reports, according to a study. The authors say this could, in some cases, reflect greater trust among researchers who choose to make the review process transparent. The analysis, published on the MetaArXiv preprint server earlier
Credit: bpawesome/Getty Replication of experimental results is important for building credible science, but replication studies are often difficult to find. A team of researchers wants to change that. They have begun publishing replication studies on the peer review platform PubPeer, along with links to the original studies. There have been numerous attempts to replicate scientific
Posting studies to preprint servers like bioRxiv is common practice in many scientific fields.Credit: Michael Szebor/Nature The central conclusions of biomedical preprints rarely change after peer review in a journal.1according to a study published on the preprint server bioRxiv this month. The research also found that studies that first appeared as preprints are retracted at
Paying reviewers led to faster first editorial decisions and higher quality reviews in a trial in the journal open biology.Credit: Phimwilai Kitsuriya/Getty Science depends on peer review, but the process can be delayed. To solve this problem, in July 2024, the magazine open biology He tried something unconventional: paying his reviewers. In the six-month experiment,