Referees’ Attitudes toward Open Peer Review and Electronic Transmission of Papers

Food Science and Technology International

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 521-527

  Melero, R ^a   Lopez Santovena F ^a  

^a CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

attitudes; electronic transmission; peer review; referees

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035605532     PISSN: 10820132     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1106/0MXD-YM6F-3LM6-G9EB     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. ALPSP (2000). Current Practice in Peer Review Report. www.alpsp.org/peerev.pdf
2. Cho M.K., Justice A.C., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Waekerle J.F., Callaham M.L. and Rennie D. (1998). Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER investigators. JAMA 280(3): 243–245.
3. Evans J. (1994). The Peer Review Process. http://www.literaticlub.co.uk/writing/articles/peerreview.html
4. Godlee F., Gale C.R. and Martyn C.N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280(3): 237–240.
5. Goldbeck-Wood S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer of manuscript? British Medical Journal 316: 86.
6. Goldbeck-Wood S. (1999). Evidence on peer review. Scientific quality control or smokescreen? British Medical Journal 318: 44–45.
7. Harnad S. (November 5, 1998). The invisible hand of peer review. http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
8. Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M., Berlin J.A. and Rennie D. (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomised controlled trial. JAMA 280: 240–242.
9. McNutt M.D., Evans A., Fletcher R. and Fletcher S. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA 263: 1371–1376.
10. Peters J. (1996). The Hundred Years War started today: An exploration of electronic peer review. Journal of Electronic Publishing May 1996. http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/PeterHundr.html
11. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R. and Black N. (1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA 280: 234–237.
12. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N. and Smith R. (1998). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal 317: 23–27.
13. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N. and Smith R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal 318: 23–27.
14. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. (1999) British Medical Journal 318: 4–5.
15. Sumner T., Buckingham Shum S., Wright M., Bonnardel N. and Chevalier A. (2000). Redesigning the Peer Review Process: A Developmental Theory-in-Action. In:COOP’2000: Fourth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (Sophia Antipolis, France: 23–26 May, 2000). www.kmi.open.ac.uk/techreport/papers/kmi-tr-96.pdf.
16. Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L. and Wilkinson G. (2000). Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 176: 47–51.