Editorial - The peer-review system: Prospects and challenges

Hydrological Sciences Journal

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 577-590

  Kundzewicz, Zbigniew W ^a   Koutsoyiannis, Demetris ^a  

^a NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044449503     PISSN: 02626667     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1623/hysj.2005.50.4.577     Document Type: Editorial

References (30)

1. Armstrong, J. S. (1982) Barriers to scientific contributions: the author's formula. Behavioral and Brain Sci. 5(2), 197-199. http://ideas.repec.org./p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502057.html
2. ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers) (1999) What authors want: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing 12(2). Worthing, UK.
3. Beck, E., Jr (2003) Anonymous reviews: self-serving, counterproductive, and unacceptable. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(26), 249. htpp://www.agu.org/pubs/eos/co0326.shtml
4. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) www.zim.mpg.de/openaccessberlin/berlindeclaration.html
5. Criss, R. E. & Hofmeister, A. M. (2003) Comment on "Anonymous Reviews". Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(30), 282. http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos/eo0330.shtml
6. Dolan, J. R. (2002) Contribution 3. In: Inter-Research Forum (ed. by H. U. Riisgård). hitp://www.int-res.com/forum/peerreview.html
7. Forel, D. (2003) Comment on "Anonymous Reviews". Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(39), 395. http://www.agu.org/ pubs/eos/eo0339.shtml
8. Gad-el-Hak, M. (2004) Publish or perish-an ailing enterprise? Physics Today 57, 3. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol57/iss-3/p61.html
9. Gardner, C., Koutsoyiannis, D., Kundzewicz, Z. & Watkins, F. (2003) IAHS and Electronic Publishing of HSJ. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Wallingford, UK. http://www.itia.ntua.gr/e/ docinfo/656/
10. Genereux, D. P. & Sen, G. (2004) Suggestion for proposal reviews. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 85(17), 171. http://www.agu. org/pubs/eos/eo0417.shtml
11. Godlee, F. (2002) Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 287, 2762-2765. http://jama.ama-assn.org/egi/content/full/287/21/2762
12. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R. & Martyn, C. N. (1999) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign reports: a randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 280, 237-240. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/3/ 237?ijkey=9ccd30cbeb6546668fe0dfcc572dc38dacdle392
13. Kneib, R. T. (2002) Contribution 2. In: Inter-Research Forum (ed. by H. U. Riisgård). http://vww.int-res.com/forum/peerreview.html
14. Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2002) Editorial: a five-year perspective. Hydrol. Sci. J. 47(3), 363-366.
15. Langer, J. (2000) Physicists in the new era of electronic publishing. Physics Today 53, 8. http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-8/ p35.html
16. Lock, S. (1994) Does editorial peer review work? Ann. Internal Medicine 121(1) 60-61. http://www.annals.orp/cgi/content/full/ 121/1/60
17. Okal, E,,(2003) Comment on "Anonymous Reviews". Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(39), 396. http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos/ eo0339.shtml.
18. Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sci. 5(2), 187-195.
19. Rennie, D. (1994) Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc. Res. 28, 1142-1143.
20. Riisgård, H. U. et al. (2000), The peer-review system: time for re-assessment? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 192, 305-313. www.int-res.com/articles/theme/riissgard.pdf
21. Robinove, C. J. (2003) Comment on "Anonymous Reviews". Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(30), 282. http://www.agu.org/ pubs/eos/eo0330.shtml
22. Rowland, F. (2002) The peer review process. Learned Publishing 15 (4), 247-258. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/ 2002/00000015/00000004/art00002
23. Santos-Sacchi, J. (2002) Contribution 5. In: Inter-Research Forum (ed. by H. U. Riisgård). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ alpsp/lp/2002/00000015/00000004/art00002
24. Savov, E. P. (2003) Comment on "Anonymous Reviews". Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(39), 396. http://www.agu.org/ pubs/eos/eo0339.shtml
25. Smith, R. (1997) Editorial-Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ 315, 759-760. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7111/759
26. van Rooyen, S, Godlee, F, Evans, S, Smith, R. & Black, N. (1998) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 280, 234-237. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/3/234
27. Walsh, E., Rooney M., Appleby, L. & Wilkinson, G. (2000) Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British J. Psychiatry 176, 47-51. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/47
28. Wesolowski, D. J. (2003) Preserving anonymity in the review process. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 84(52), 583. http://www.agu. org/pubs/eos/eo0352.shtml
29. Wessely, S, Brugha, T, Cowen, P., Smith, L. & Paykel, E. (1996) Do authors know who refereed their paper? A questionnaire survey. BMJ 313, 1185. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7066/ 1185
30. Williamson, A. (2002) What happens to peer review? Paper presented at an ALPSP Intl. Learned Journals Seminar, London, UK, 12 April 2002. www.alpsp.org/will20402.ppt