Is peer review censorship?

Infection and Immunity

Volumn 77, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1273-1274

  Casadevall, Arturo ^a   Fang, Ferric C ^a  

^a Infection and Immunity ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CENSORSHIP; EDITORIAL; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; PUBLISHING; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING;

EID: 63149110127     PISSN: 00199567     EISSN: 10985522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00018-09     Document Type: Editorial

References (31)

1. Anonymous. 2009. Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA.
2. Atkinson, M. 2001. 'Peer review' culture. Sci. Eng. Ethics 7:193-204.
3. Bauer, H. H. 2004. Science in the 21st century: knowledge monopolies and research cartels. J. Sci. Explor. 18:643-660.
4. Benos, D. J., E. Bashari, J. M. Chaves, et al. 2007. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 31:145-152.
5. Brown, T. 2004. Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. Sense About Science, London, United Kingdom.
6. Burnham, J. C. 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 263:1323-1329.
7. Cohen, J. 1994. The Duesberg phenomenon. Science 266:1642-1644.
8. Cole, S., J. R. Cole, and G. A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214:881-886.
9. Copernicus, N. 1543. De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. Warnock Library, Nuremberg, Germany.
10. Fang, F. C. 2008. On rejection. Infect. Immun. 76:1802-1803.
11. Forrest, B., and P. R. Gross. 2004. Creationism's Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
12. Galilei, G. 1957. Lett. to Don Virginio Cesarini, p. 256. In S. Drake (trans.), Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. Doubleday, New York, NY.
13. Gannon, F. 2001. The essential role of peer review. EMBO Rep. 2:743.
14. Gannon, F. 2005. Is the system dumbing down research? EMBO Rep. 6:387.
15. Giles, J. 2007. Open-access journal will publish first, judge later. Nature 445:9.
16. Harris, G. 11 July 2007. Surgeon general sees 4-year term as compromised. New York Times, New York, NY.
17. Hojat, M., J. S. Gonnella, and A. S. Caelleigh. 2003. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 8:75-96.
18. Horrobin, D. F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263:1438-1441.
19. Horrobin, D. F. 2001. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22:51-52.
20. Jefferson, T., E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. 2002. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 287:2786-2790.
21. Macilwain, C., and G. Brumfiel. 2006. US scientists fight political meddling. Nature 439:896-897.
22. Peter, L. 1977. Peter's quotations: ideas for our time. Morrow, New York, NY.
23. Polak, J. F. 1995. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. Am. J. Roentgenol. 165:685-688.
24. Revkin, A. C. 9 July 2008. Cheney's office said to edit draft testimony on warming. New York Times, New York, NY.
25. Rothwell, P. M., and C. N. Martyn. 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. Salyers, A. 2002. Science, censorship, and public health. Science 296:617.
27. Shahar, E. 2007. On editorial practice and peer review. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 13:699-701.
28. Smith, R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99:178-182.
29. Smith, T. C., and S. P. Novella. 2007. HIV denial in the internet era. PLoS Med. 4:e256.
30. Spier, R. 2002. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol. 20:357-358.
31. Triggle, C. R., and D. J. Triggle. 2007. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"? Vasc. Health Risk Manag. 3:39-53.