Peer review is integral to a scholar’s journey, whether you’re trying to secure funding, present research at a conference, or publish your findings in a book or journal. Yet despite its ubiquity and ...

JT Torres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their ...

The AICPA Peer Review Board (PRB) voted Monday to approve a standards update designed to better align peer review standards with new quality management (QM) standards and to clarify and improve ...

When a new submission is received, it is assigned to a primary editor, who reads the paper, consults with the other editors, and decides whether it should be sent for peer review based on the ...

Institutional peer review of radiation therapy resulted in changes to treatment plans in over a quarter of cancer cases, according to a meta-analysis that identified target volume delineation and ...

A proposed change to the AICPA Peer Review Program would centralize the administration of peer reviews for firms operating under alternative practice structures, such as those with private equity ...

Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What's wrong with peer review? Peter Lawrence, a developmental ...

Discussions on Twitter and elsewhere regarding the perceived shortcomings of The BMJ peer review system prompted the journal’s research editors to defend the process in a recent blog post. The paper ...

The National Institutes of Health plans to centralize its peer review operations for the grants and research contracts it ...

The aggravating prior authorization process includes one step that merits scrutiny and potentially regulatory action: the peer-to-peer review.