Median Watch

Eyes on statistics

Experimenting with peer review

RORI’s interesting report on the future of peer review noted a lack of cross-over of ideas between peer review in funding and peer review in journals. Having worked on both, I have ideas. Lotteries for journals Conditional lotteries are becoming popular with funders. After we were publicly made fun of for suggesting them with the Australian NHMRC in 2015, they are now all over the world. They are popular because they reduce biases, save time, and appear to increase diversity.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Sunday, July 12, 2026

A publication’s “what” should count more than it’s “where”: why we should waive journal titles

Reproduced from the DORA blog. The winter months can get cold in Belfast, the largest city in Northern Ireland where the Titanic was designed, built and launched in the early 1900s. Not seriously cold of course, never sub-zero depths of cold that were the undoing of the Titanic on its maiden voyage, but a ‘nippy’ cold… a cold that comes with biting winds and rain that means only the bravest of souls venture outside in the winter months without the insurance policy of a good coat.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Wednesday, November 13, 2024

Randomisation can resolve the uncertainty at the heart of peer review

Reproduced from the LSE impact blog. Here’s their introduction: Peer review decisions are definitive, and depending on the style of peer review practiced at a journal, reviewers can usually make one of three recommendations: accept, reject, revise and resubmit. Discussing a new study into the levels of certainty reviewers have making these choices, Adrian Barnett suggests how embracing this doubt could improve peer review processes. Easy peer review Occasionally I find peer review easy.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Saturday, October 26, 2024