This release contains revisions based on feedback provided by the reviewers. Improvements to the previous version: We updated the table on co-review policies. It now includes common variants of the terms displayed. We further provide a new table with sampled phrases giving more context to the terms. We have greatly improved the documentation of our code and data. Among other things, the README.md now contains tables with descriptions for the relevant data and code files
[Excerpt] In this issue’s “From the Editor,” I describe a new review policy and process for both aut...
Peer review is a key component of the publishing process in most fields of science. Increasing submi...
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by ...
This release is an update to the initial version based on feedback to the preprint. The only major ...
There are a variety of ways publishers are exposing journal article peer reviews. The use of Crossre...
We used criteria associated with the Transpose database to evaluate policies in 171 of the most high...
It is a time of great innovation in peer review. Traditional models are being adapted and completely...
The increasing adoption of preprinting and of open or transparent peer review are two major developm...
Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for ...
The workshop introduced the participants to preprinting and preprint peer review. Participants were...
General guideline for Peer Review process: This journal’s peer review policy states that NO manuscri...
Manuscripts have a complex development process with multiple influencing factors. Reconstructing thi...
Peer-review is an integral part of the scientific process, but getting a sufficient number of busy s...
This vision describes a radically different publishing model that would reinvent the concept of a sc...
We present PeerSum, a new MDS dataset using peer reviews of scientific publications. Our dataset dif...
[Excerpt] In this issue’s “From the Editor,” I describe a new review policy and process for both aut...
Peer review is a key component of the publishing process in most fields of science. Increasing submi...
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by ...
This release is an update to the initial version based on feedback to the preprint. The only major ...
There are a variety of ways publishers are exposing journal article peer reviews. The use of Crossre...
We used criteria associated with the Transpose database to evaluate policies in 171 of the most high...
It is a time of great innovation in peer review. Traditional models are being adapted and completely...
The increasing adoption of preprinting and of open or transparent peer review are two major developm...
Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for ...
The workshop introduced the participants to preprinting and preprint peer review. Participants were...
General guideline for Peer Review process: This journal’s peer review policy states that NO manuscri...
Manuscripts have a complex development process with multiple influencing factors. Reconstructing thi...
Peer-review is an integral part of the scientific process, but getting a sufficient number of busy s...
This vision describes a radically different publishing model that would reinvent the concept of a sc...
We present PeerSum, a new MDS dataset using peer reviews of scientific publications. Our dataset dif...
[Excerpt] In this issue’s “From the Editor,” I describe a new review policy and process for both aut...
Peer review is a key component of the publishing process in most fields of science. Increasing submi...
eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by ...