A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the"gatekeepers" of research in exercise physiology

Journal of Exercise Physiology Online

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2003, Pages

  Robergs, Robert A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETENCE; EDITORIAL; ETHICS; EXERCISE; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PHYSIOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STUDENT; TEACHER;

EID: 3242738385     PISSN: 10979751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (24)

1. th-Century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263(10);1321-1322.
2. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990;263(10);1323-1329.
3. Rennie D. (Editor) Guarding the guardians - Research on editorial peer review (Selected proceedings from the first international congress on peer review in biomedical publication) JAMA 1990;263(10);1311-1441.
4. Rennie D. (Editor) Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: The first international congress JAMA 1990;263(10);1317.
5. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990;263(10):1438-1441.
6. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990;263(10);1392-1395.
7. Sharp DW. What can be done and should be done to reduce publication bias. JAMA 1990;263(10);1390-1391.
8. Daniel HD. Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. 1993; VCH, Weinheim, Germany.
9. Ciocchetti D. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci 1991;14:119-135.
10. Bornstein RF. The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue. Behav Brain Sci 1991;14(10:138-139.
11. Baue AE. Peer and/or peerless review. Arch Surgery 1985;120(8):885-88.
12. Kornhuber HH. Mehr forschungseffizienz durch objektivere Beurteilung von forschungsleistungen. In Daniel HD and Fisch R. (editors) Evaluation von forschung: Methoden - ergebnisse - stellungnahmen. (S. 361-382), 1988; Universitatsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz.
13. Robergs RA. (Editorial) New topic category in JEPonline. JEPonline. 2003;6(2):xiii.
14. Marsh HW and Ball S. The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgemental reliability. J Exp Edn 1989;57(2):151-169.
15. Laming D. Why is the reliability of peer review so low? Behav Brain Sci 1991;14(1):154-156.
16. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn Therapy Res 1977;1(2):161-175.
17. Cole S., Cole JR, Simon GA. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 1981;214:881-886.
18. Debakey L. Journal peer reviewing: Anonymity or disclosure? Arch Opthalmol 1990;108(3):345-349.
19. Chubin DE and Hackett EJ. Peer review and the courts: Notes of a participant scientist. Bull Sci Technol Society 1982;2:423-432.
20. Glenn ND. The journal article review process - Some proposals for change. Am Sociologist 1976;11:179-185.
21. Anderson RE. Guidelines for review of a manuscript. Human Pathology 1990;21(4):359-360.
22. Eysenck HJ and Eysenck SBG. Peer review: advice to referees and contributors (Editorial). Personality Individ Diff 1992;13(4):393-399.
23. Daniel TM. Why manuscripts are rejected: With thanks to our reviewers (Editorial). J Lab Clin Med 1991;117(1):1-2.
24. Fiske DW. and Fogg L. But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Am Psychologist 1990;45(5):591-598.