Articles tagged with 'Open Peer Review'

8 posts

HRB open peer review header

Tips for integrating peer reviewer feedback to your research

By Jack Nash

05 June 2025

Peer review is important for academic publishing, helping to maintain quality and trust in research. After your manuscript passes our editorial checks and is published on HRB Open Research, our in-house Editorial team will invite experts from your field to carefully review the paper before it receives the ‘approved’ peer review status on the Platform. […]

How to write a constructive peer review report

By Jack Nash

30 April 2025

Peer review is an integral part of scholarly communication and academic publishing. It’s also an opportunity to provide valuable and constructive feedback to authors, helping them improve their manuscripts and to verify the quality of their research. However, writing peer review reports can be challenging, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and some research papers […]

What is editorial-led peer review and what does it mean for authors?

By Jack Nash

21 May 2024

When F1000 first launched, it set out to rethink how research is communicated, with the aim of greatly accelerating the sharing of new findings, bringing control of the process back to authors and the research community, and providing transparency across the full process, from underlying research data and code through to open peer review. These remain crucial principles on which all the F1000 platforms are based, including HRB Open Research. In this blog, Managing Director Rebecca Lawrence outlines the first of several adjustments to the F1000 publishing model – the move to editorial-led peer review.

How can peer review support science communication?

By Jack Nash

30 April 2024

Science communication, particularly science journalism, is central to disseminating the latest research to policymakers, practitioners, the public, and other stakeholders. However, it’s vital that the research being communicated is sound and reliable to avoid misinformation and mistrust of research.