Universal Principled Review: A Community-Driven Method to Improve Peer Review | Zendy

Matthew F. Krummel | Zendy; Catherine A. Blish | Zendy; Michael S. Kuhns | Zendy; Ken Cadwell | Zendy; Andrew Oberst | Zendy; Ananda W. Goldrath | Zendy; K. Mark Ansel | Zendy; Hongbo Chi | Zendy; Ryan M. O’Connell | Zendy; E. John Wherry | Zendy; Marion Pepper | Zendy; Igor E. Brodsky | Zendy; John T. Chang | Zendy; Joseph R. Arron | Zendy; Nick Haining | Zendy; Deepta Bhattacharya | Zendy; Mark Anderson | Zendy; Carla V. Rothlin | Zendy; Susan R. Schwab | Zendy; Yasmine Belkaid | Zendy; Ari B. Molofsky | Zendy; Pete Savage | Zendy; Daniel Mucida | Zendy; Akiko Iwasaki | Zendy; Gabriel D. Victora | Zendy; Jessica A. Hamerman | Zendy; David Masopust | Zendy; Greg Barton | Zendy; Susan M. Kaech | Zendy; Prescott G. Woodruff | Zendy; Daniel B. Stetson | Zendy; Tiffany C. Scharschmidt | Zendy; Ross M. Kedl | Zendy; Elina I. Zúñiga | Zendy; Alexander Hoffmann | Zendy; Matt Williams | Zendy; Katrin D. MayerBarber | Zendy; Sunny Shin | Zendy; Steven J. Bensinger | Zendy; Li-Fan Lu | Zendy; Mark R. Looney | Zendy; J Round | Zendy; Sébastian Amigorena | Zendy; Jonathan W. Yewdell | Zendy; Joseph C. Sun | Zendy; John T. Harty | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Universal Principled Review: A Community-Driven Method to Improve Peer Review

Author(s) -

Matthew F. Krummel,

Catherine A. Blish,

Michael S. Kuhns,

Ken Cadwell,

Andrew Oberst,

Ananda W. Goldrath,

K. Mark Ansel,

Hongbo Chi,

Ryan M. O’Connell,

E. John Wherry,

Marion Pepper,

Igor E. Brodsky,

John T. Chang,

Joseph R. Arron,

Nick Haining,

Deepta Bhattacharya,

Mark Anderson,

Carla V. Rothlin,

Susan R. Schwab,

Yasmine Belkaid,

Ari B. Molofsky,

Pete Savage,

Daniel Mucida,

Akiko Iwasaki,

Gabriel D. Victora,

Jessica A. Hamerman,

David Masopust,

Greg Barton,

Susan M. Kaech,

Prescott G. Woodruff,

Daniel B. Stetson,

Tiffany C. Scharschmidt,

Ross M. Kedl,

Elina I. Zúñiga,

Alexander Hoffmann,

Matt Williams,

Katrin D. MayerBarber,

Sunny Shin,

Steven J. Bensinger,

Li-Fan Lu,

Mark R. Looney,

J Round,

Sébastian Amigorena,

Jonathan W. Yewdell,

Joseph C. Sun,

John T. Harty

Publication year - 2019

Publication title -

cell

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 26.304

H-Index - 776

eISSN - 1097-4172

pISSN - 0092-8674

DOI - 10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.029

Subject(s) - transparency (behavior) , biology , process (computing) , criticism , ideal (ethics) , engineering ethics , quality (philosophy) , data science , computer science , epistemology , political science , law , philosophy , computer security , engineering , operating system

Despite being a staple of our science, the process of pre-publication peer review has few agreed-upon standards defining its goals or ideal execution. As a community of reviewers and authors, we assembled an evaluation format and associated specific standards for the process as we think it should be practiced. We propose that we apply, debate, and ultimately extend these to improve the transparency of our criticism and the speed with which quality data and ideas become public.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research