Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Reproducibility is essential for the progress of research, yet achieving it remains elusive even in computational fields. Here, authors develop the rworkflows suite, making robust CI/CD workflows easy and freely accessible to all R package developers.
A meta-analysis of peer-review data from over 300,000 biological sciences manuscripts reveals worse review outcomes for authors from historically excluded groups, and limited data evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to address bias in peer review.
To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals have begun publishing peer review reports. Here, the authors show how this policy shift affects reviewer behavior by analyzing data from five journals piloting open peer review.
Surgical video review offers objective skill evaluation and has advantages over traditional in-person assessments. In this Opinion, the authors discuss the emerging role of video review in urological surgery and highlight its applications and key challenges to widespread implementation.
Everyone who reviews a manuscript should answer a transparent set of questions, to ensure that scientific literature is subject to reliable quality control.
Peer review for a narrative review article can be quite different from the process for an empirical manuscript. We demystify the aims of and procedures for peer review at Nature Reviews Psychology.
Large language models are capable of impressive feats, but the job of scientific review requires more than the statistics of published work can provide.