A conference’s peer-review was found to be sort of random, but whose fault is it?

A review at a National Institute of Health (US) evaluates a grant proposal.

It’s not a good time for peer-review. Sure, if you’ve been a regular reader of Retraction Watch, it’s never been a good time for peer-review. But aside from that, the process has increasingly been taking the brunt for not being able to stem the publishing of results that – after publication – have been found … Read more