Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines

Serials Librarian

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 39-59

  Bachand, Robert G ^a   Sawallis, Pamela P ^a  

^a FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Journals; Peer review; Serials Directory; Ulrich's Periodicals Directory

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346972972     PISSN: 0361526X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J123v45n02_04     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Eldredge, Jonathan. "Accuracy of Indexing Coverage Information as Reported by Serials Sources," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 81, no. 4 (1993): 364-370.
2. Eldredge, Jonathan. "Identifying Peer Reviewed Journals in Clinical Medicine," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 85, no. 4 (1997): 418-422.
3. Shatz, David. "Is Peer Review Overrated?" Moist 79 (October 1996): 536-563.
4. Davidoff, Frank et al. "Sponsorship, Authorship and Accountability," Lancet 358, no. 9285 (2001): 854-856.
5. King, Christopher, Senior Associate Editor, R. R. Bowker (Ulrich's). E-mail communication. (February 20, 2002).
6. Campbell, Jennifer, Assistant Editor. E-mail communication. (August 26, 2002).
7. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. New York, NY: Bowker, 2000.
8. O'Connell, Jennifer, Assistant Editor, Serials Directory. E-mail communication. (May 5, 1999).
9. Schulman, Sandy, Accounts Executive, Proquest. E-mail communication. (February 28, 2002).
10. Wilbur, Helen, Vice President, Consortia Sales, Gale Group. E-main communication. (February 28, 2002).
11. Campbell, Jennifer, Assistant Editor, Serials Directory. E-mail communication. (August 27, 2002).
12. Blake, Virgil L. P. "The Perceived Prestige of Professional Journals, 1995: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study," Education for Information 14 (1996): 157-179.
13. American Psychological Association. Journals in Psychology: A Resource Listing for Authors. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997).
14. Milton, Suzanne and Elizabeth Malia. Index Guide to College Journals. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1999).
15. Katz, Bill and Linda Sternberg Katz. Magazines of Libraries (9th ed.). (New York: Bowker, 1997).
16. International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. List of Core Journals in Earth Science. (Paris: Unesco, 1986).
17. Stankus, Tony and Carolyn V. Mills. "Which Life Science Journals Will Constitute the Locally Sustainable Core Collection of the 1990s and Which Will Become "Fax-access" Only? Predictions Based on Citations and Price Patterns 1979-1989," Science and Technology Libraries 13, no. 1 (1992): 75-114.
18. Budd, John M. "Higher Education Literature. Characteristics of Citation Patterns," Journal of Higher Education 61, no. 1 (1990): 84-97.
19. O'Brien, Nancy P. and Emily Fabiano. Core List of Books and Journals in Education. (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx, 1991).
20. Schoen, David M. and Suzette M. Hino. "Building Psychology Collections Using Core Journal Lists: An Annotated Bibliography," Behavior & Social Sciences Librarian 17, no. 1 (1998): 55-61.
21. Milton, Suzanne and Elizabeth Malia. Index Guide to College Journals. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1999).
22. Scharschmidt, B. F. et al. "Chance, Concurrence, and Clustering. Analysis of Reviewers' Recommendations on 1,000 Submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation," Journul of Clinical Investigation 93, no. 5 (1994): 1877-1880.
23. Earnshaw, J. J. et al. "A Comparison of Reports from Referees Chosen by Authors or Journal Editors in the Peer Review Process," Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 82, no. 4 Suppl (2000): 133-135.
24. Nature. Survey reply and comments. (April 30, 2002).
25. Geological Magazine. Survey reply and comments. (April 20, 2002).
26. Cahn, R. W. "Referees: Advisers or Deciders?" In R. A. Weeks and D. L. Kniser, eds., Editing the Refereed Scientific Journal: Practical, Political and Ethical Issues. (New York: IEEE Press, 1994), 34-41.
27. Black, Nick et al. "What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?" Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 3 (1998): 231-233.
28. Lindsey, Duncan. "Ensuring Standards in Social Work Research," Research on Social Work Practice 9, no. 1 (1999): 115-120.
29. Glenwick, David. "An Editorial Perspective. Reflections of the First Four Years of Editing Criminal Justice and Behavior," Criminal Justice and Behavior 22, no. 3 (1995): 211-214.
30. Stoltenberg, Clyde, Editor-in-Chief, American Business Law Journal. E-mail communication. (August 15, 2002).
31. Law and Social Inquiry. Survey reply and comments. (April 17, 2002).
32. Campanario, J. M. "Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today. Part 2." Science Communication 19, no. 4 (1998): 277-306.
33. Link, A. M. "US and non-US submissions. An Analysis of Reviewer Bias," Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 3 (1998): 246-249.
34. Blank, R. "The Effects of Double-blind Versus Single-blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from the American Economic Review," American Economic Review 81, no. 5 (1991): 1041-1067.
35. Abramowitz, S. I., B. Gomes and C. V. Abramowitz. "Publish or Politic: Referee Bias in Manuscript Review," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5, no. 3 (1975): 187-200.
36. Anonymous. "Bad Peer Review," Nature 413, no. 6852 (2001): 93.
37. Leslie, L. Z. "Peer Review Practices of Mass Communication Scholarly Journals," Evaluation Review 14, no. 2 (1990): 151-65.
38. Anonymous. "Committee on Publication Ethics: The COPE report 1999 Guidelines on Good Publication Practice," Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 46, no. 3 (2000): 217-21.
39. Burnard, Philip and Ben Hannigan. "Reviewing the Review Process: Towards Good Practice in the Peer Review of Manuscripts Submitted to Nursing Journals," Nurse Education Today 21, no. 3 (2001): 238-242.
40. Kuntzelman, D. R. et al. "Improving Quality of Peer Review: Ranking of Guidance Criteria," Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 39, no. 5 (2001): 565.
41. Margo, R. and P. Huston. "Qualitative Research Articles: Information for Authors and Peer Reviewers," Canadian Medical Association Journal 157, no. 10 (1997): 1442-1446.
42. Callaham, Michael et al. "Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts," Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 3 (1998): 229-231.
43. Callaham M. L., and D. L. Schriger. "Effect of Structured Workshop Training on Subsequent Performance of Journal Peer Reviewers," Annals of Emergency Medicine 40, no. 3 (2002): 323-8.
44. Engers, M. and J. S. Gans. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," The American Economic Review 88, no. 5 (1998): 1341-1349.
45. Godlee, Fiona. "Making Reviewers Visible. Openness, Accountability, and Credit,". Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 21 (2002): 2762-2765.
46. Chang, Juin-jen and Ching-chong Lai. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?" Southern Economic Journal 62, no. 2 (2001): 457-463.
47. IBM Systems Journal. Survey reply and comments. (May 5, 2002).
48. Journal of the American Medical Association. Survey reply and comments. (April 15, 2002).
49. Goldbeck-Wood, Sandra. "What Makes a Good Reviewer of Manuscripts? The BMJ Invites You to Join Its Peer Review Process," British Medical Journal 316, no. 7125 (1998): 86.
50. Weller, Ann. "Editorial Peer Review in US Medical Journals," Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10 (1990): 1344-1348.
51. Zoologica Scripta. Survey reply and comments. (May 15, 2002).
52. Dalton, Rex. (2001). "Scientific Peer Review: Peers Under Pressure," Nature 413 (6852): 102-104.
53. Campanario, J. M. (1998). "Peer Review for Journals as It Stands Today. Part 2," Science Communication 19, no. 4 (1998): 277-306.
54. van Rooyen, Susan et al. "Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review," Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 3 (1998): 234-237.
55. Ibis. Survey reply and comments. (May 15, 2002).
56. Van Rooyen, Susan et al. "Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers' Recommendations: A Randomized Trial," BMJ 318, no. 7175 (1999): 23-27.
57. Anonymous. "Pros and Cons of Open Review" (Editorial), Nature Neuroscience 2, no. 3 (1999): 197-198.
58. Via, Barbara J. "Publishing in the Journal Literature of Library and Information Science: A Survey of Manuscript Review Process and Acceptance," College and Research Libraries 57, no. 4 (1996): 365-376.
59. Gura, Trisha. "Peer Review Unmasked," Nature. 416, no. 6878 (2002): 258-260.
60. Bingham, C., and R. Coleman "Enter the Web: An Experiment in Electronic Research Peer Review," Medical Journal of Australia 164, no. 1 (1996): 8-9.
61. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD) http://www.copernicus.org/EGS/acp/publication_process.htm (October 5, 2002).
62. Cambridge Journal of Education. Survey reply and comments. (April 17, 2002).
63. Rethinking History.Survey reply and comments. (August 7, 2002).
64. International Journal of African Historical Studies. Survey reply and comments. (June 26, 2002).
65. Accounting Horizons. Survey reply and comments. (April 23, 2002).
66. Horton, Richard. "Postpublication Criticism and the Shaping of Clinical Knowledge," Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 21 (2002): 2843-2847.