Is peer review a game of chance?

BioScience

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 333-340

  Neff, Bryan D ^a   Olden, Julian D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian approach; Citation; Impact; Probability; Publication bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645790459     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Elgar MA. 1997. Heritabilities and paradigm shifts. Nature 385: 402-403.
2. Armstrong JS. 1982. Is review by peers as fair as it appears? Interfaces 12: 62-74.
3. Bakewell D. 1992. French research - publish in English or perish. Nature 356: 648.
4. Carlstedt RA. 2002. Cortex forum on peer-review multiple submissions. Cortex 38: 411.
5. Cassey P, Blackburn TM. 2003. Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 375-376.
6. _. 2004. Publication and rejection among successful ecologists. BioScience 54: 234-239.
7. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881-886.
8. Forsdyke DR. 1993. On giraffes and peer review. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 7: 619-621.
9. Garfunkel JM, Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE. 1994. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 137-138.
10. Glantz SA, Bero LA. 1994. Inappropriate and appropriate selection of 'peers' in grant review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 114-117.
11. Gordon M. 1977. Evaluating the evaluators. New Scientist 73: 342-343.
12. Grant J, Burden S, Breen G. 1997. No evidence of sexism in peer review. Nature 390: 438.
13. Grimm D. 2005. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science 309: 1974.
14. Gura T. 2002. Peer review - unmasked. Nature 416: 258-260.
15. Huxley L. 1901. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. New York: Appleton.
16. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. 2002. Effects of editorial peer review - a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2784-2786.
17. Jennions MD, Møller AP. 2002. Relationships fade with time: A meta-analysis of temporal trends in publication in ecology and evolution. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 269: 43-48.
18. Lawrence PA. 2003. The politics of publication. Nature 422: 259-261.
19. Leimu R, Koricheva J. 2005. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 28-32.
20. Lock S. 1986. A Difficult Balance - Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
21. Lock S, Smith J. 1990. What do peer-reviewers do? Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1341-1343.
22. Marshall E. 1998. The Internet: A powerful tool for plagiarism sleuths. Science 279: 474.
23. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 187-195.
24. Rissgård HU. 2003. Misuse of the peer-review system: Time for counter-measures? Marine Ecology Progress Series 258: 297-309.
25. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123: 1964-1969.
26. Tregenza T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 349-350.
27. Wennerås C, Wong A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341-343.
28. Wilson JD. 1978. Peer review and publication. Journal of Clinical Investigation 61: 1697-1701.
29. Yankauer A. 1990. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1338-1340.