How to fix peer review: Separating its two functions - Improving manuscripts and judging their scientific merit-would help

Journal of Child and Family Studies

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 321-323

  Kaplan, David ^a  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24144447006     PISSN: 10621024     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10826-005-6845-3     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of American Medical Association, 287, 2786-2790.
2. Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The polictics of publication. Nature, 422, 259-261.
3. Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of American Medical Association, 263, 1438-1441.
4. Enserink, M. (2001). Peer review and quality: A dubious connection? Science, 293, 2187-2188.
5. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Science, 5, 187-196.
6. Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuorscience. Brain, 123, 1964-1969.