The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age

Journal of Electronic Publishing

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2007, Pages

  Solomon, David J ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250665124     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10802711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0010.107     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Altman, D. G. 2002 Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287;21:2765-2767.
2. Baxt, W. G., J. F. Waeckerle, J. Berlin, and M. L. Callahm. 1989. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32:310-317.
3. Bloom, T. 2006. Systems: Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ index.html.
4. Campbell, P. 2006. Nature Peer Review Trial and Debate. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html.
5. Chang, A. 2006. Online journals challenge scientific peer review. Retrieved on November 19, 2006 from http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/ news/breaking_news/15655422.htm.
6. Debate. 2006. "Peer Review" In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerrevie w/debate/index.html
7. Editorial. 2005. "Revolutionized peer review?". Nature Neuroscience 8; 4:397.
8. Faxon Institute. 1991. An Examination of Work-related Information Acquisition and Usage among Scientific, Medical and Technical Fields Westwood, Mass. Faxon Company.
9. Godlee, F. 2002. Making reviewers visible. Openness, accountability and credit. JAMA287; 21:2762-2765.
10. Goldbeck-Wood, S. 1999. Evidence on peer review: scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 318:44-45 (2 January). http://www.bmj.com/ cgi/reprint/318/7175/44.
11. Gotzxche, P. C. 1989. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blinded trials of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10:3159.
12. Guédon, J. 2001. In Oldenburg's long shadow: Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Presentation to the May 2001 meeting of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), at http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html.
13. Jefferson, T., P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. 2002a. Effects of editorial peer review. JAMA June 5, 287; 21:2784-2786.
14. Jefferson, T, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. 2002b. Measuring quality of editorial peer review. JAMA June 5, 287; 21:2786-2790.
15. Jefferson, T. 2006. Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/ debate/nature05031.html.
16. Koop T., and U. Pöschl. 2006. An open, two-stage peer-review journal. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ nature04988.html.
17. Kumashiro, K. K. 2005. Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal-Article Publication. Harvard Educational Review 75; 3:257-287.
18. Pocock, S. J., M. D. Hughes, and R. J. Lee. 1987. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 317:426-432.
19. Regehr, G., and G. Bordage. 2006. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education 40:832-839.
20. Schafner, A. C. 1994. The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries 13:239-47.
21. Sandewall, E. 2006. A hybrid system of peer review. In Nature. http://www.nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04994.html.
22. Smith, R. 1999 Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1318:4-5 (2 January). http://www.bmj.eom/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4.
23. Van Rooyen S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomized trial. BMJ 318:23-27 (2 January). http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/318/ 7175/23.