The 'peer reviewer as collaborator' model for publishing

Learned Publishing

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 17-22

  Kumar, Malhar N ^a  

^a Hosmat   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749113170     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20100105     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Wenneras, C. and Wold, A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387: 341-3. doi:10.1038/387341a0
2. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA, 263(10): 1438-41. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/263/10/1435
3. Armstrong, J.S. 1997. Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3: 63-84. http://cogprints.org/5197/1/peer_review_for_journals.pdf
4. Rothwell, P.M. and Martyn, C.N. 2000. Reproducibility of peer reviews in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 123: 1964-9. doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.
5. Ernst E., Resch K.I., and Uner E.M. 1992. Reviewer bias. Annals of Internal Medicine, 116(11): 958 http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/116/11/958-a
6. Bégaud B. and Verdoux H. 2001. Did the US boycott of French products spread to include scientific output? BMJ, 329: 1430-1. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1430
7. Campanario J.M. 2003. Rejecting Nobel Class articles and Resisting Nobel class discoveries, available at http://www2.uah.es/jmc/nobel/nobel.html
8. Bartels J.M., Glass L.A., Kreiner D.S., and Ryan J.J. 2009. The pursuit of publication: authors' perceptions of and responses to peer review. North American Journal of Psychology, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6894/is_1_11/ai_n31564632/?tag=content;col1
9. Garfield, E. 1986. Refereeing and peer review, part 2: The research on refereeing and alternatives to the present system. Essays of an InformationScientist, 9: 239-48. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v9p239y1986.pdf
10. Boice, R. and Jones, F. 1984. Why academics don't write. Journal of Higher Education, 55: 567-82. http://jstor.org/pss/1981822
11. Shashok, K. 2008. Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feed back about the writing? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(3). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-3
12. Misak, A., Marusic, M., and Marusic, A. 2005. Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14: 122-32. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.001
13. Tsang, E.W.K. and Frey, B.S. 2007. The asis journal review process: let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6: 28-36. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/2323/2/2007_FreyB_AMLE_The-As-Is-Jou-2.pdf, accessed 19 August 2009
14. Frey, B.S. 2003. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116: 205-23, available at http://www.bsfrey.ch/articles/388_03.pdf (last accessed 19 August 2009)
15. Ashforth, B.E. 2008. Becoming vanilla pudding: how we undermine our passion for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 400-3. doi:10.1177/1056492605280783
16. Final findings of scientific misconduct, NIH guide, Vol. 22, No. 23, 1993, available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html, last accessed 14 August 2009.
17. Marshall, E. 1995. Suit alleges misuse of peer review. Science, 270(5244): 1912-4. doi:10.1126/science.270.5244.1912
18. Goodstein, D. 2002. Scientific misconduct. Academe, 88(1) available at http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/JF/Feat/good.htm, last accessed 14 August 2009.
19. Kirchgässner, G. 1992. Towards a theory of low cost decisions. European Journal of Political Economy, 8: 305-20. doi:10:1016/0176-2680(92)90028-F
20. Bedeian, A.G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in management disciplines, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3: 198-216. http://www.bus.lsu.edu/bedeian/articles/SSKAMLE2004.pdf
21. Amabile, T.M. 1983. Brilliant but cruel: perception of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 146-56. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90034-3.
22. Burrough-Boenisch, J. 2003. Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 223-43. doi.10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7
23. Aalbers, M.B. 2004. Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: a non-Anglo-American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 36(3): 319-22. doi:10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00229.x.
24. Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J. 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Writing and Communication, 23(1): 3-35. doi:10.1177/0741088305283754
25. Rennie, D. 1998. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication. JAMA, 280: 300-2. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/3/300
26. Ware, M. PRC (Publishing Research Consortium): Peer review in scholarly journals, Mark Ware Consulting, Bristol, 2008, available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
27. Fabiato, A. 1994. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovascular Research, 28: 1134-9. doi:10.1093/cvr/28.8.1134.
28. Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., and Smith, R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewer's recommendations: a randomized trial. BMJ, 318: 23-7. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/318/7175/23.pdf
29. Carmi, R. and Koch, C. 2007. Improving peer review with CARMA. Learned Publishing, 20: 173-6. doi:10.1087/095315107x204067
30. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, available at http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/review/index.html
31. Suls, J. and Martin, R. 2009. The air we breathe: a critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1): 40-50. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x
32. Schroter, S., Hutchings, A., and Black, N. 2006. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 295(3): 314-7. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/3/314
33. Wager, E., Parkin, E.C., and Tamber, P.S. 2006. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4: 13. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-4-13
34. Anonymous. 2005. Policy matters, policies that matter (editorial). Nature Cell Biology, 7: 1037. doi:10.1038/ncb1105-1037a
35. Lu, Y. 2008. Peer review and its contribution to manuscript quality: an Australian perspective. Learned Publishing, 21(4): 307-8. doi:10.1087/095315108x323884
36. Tite, L. and Schroter, S. 2007. Why peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61: 9-12. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.049817
37. Francis Bacon, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bacon.htm
38. Merton, R.K. The Sociology of Science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973.
39. Schachman, H.K. 2006. From publish or perish to patent and prosper. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281(11): 6889-903. doi:10.1074/JBC.x600002200.
40. Pang, T. 2003. Filling the gap between knowing and doing. Nature, 426: 383. doi:10.1038/426383a
41. Kohn, A. 1998. Challenging behaviourist dogma: myths about money and motivation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 30(2): 27-37. doi:10.1177/088636879803000206
42. Bassett-Jones, N. and Lloyd, G.C. 2005. Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10): 929-43. doi:10.1108/02621710510627064
43. Managing peer reviewers, available at http://www.wame.org/wame-listserve-discussions/managing-peer-reviewers
44. Choi, B. 2006. Incentives to encourage peer review, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 52: 325. http://www.jpgmonline.com/text.asp?2006/52/4/325/28169
45. Riisgard, H.U. 2000. The peer-review system: time for reassessment? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 192: 305-13. http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m277p301.pdf
46. Godlee, F. 2002. Making reviewers visible. JAMA, 287: 2762-5. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.
47. Garfield, E. 1955. Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159): 108-11. doi:10.1126/science.122.3159.108.
48. Hirsch, J.E. 2006. An index to qualify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 102(46): 16569-73. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102
49. Egghe, L. 2006. Theory and practice of the g index. Scientometrics, 69(1): 131-52. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
50. Frankel, M.S., Elliott, R., Blume, M., et al. Defining and certifying electronic publication in science, available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/epub/define.shtml, last accessed 14 August 2009.
51. Wutchy, S., Jones, B.F., and Uzzi, B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of scientific knowledge. Science, 316: 1036-9. doi:10.1126/science.1136099
52. Freeman, P. and Robbins, A. 2006. The publishing gap between the rich and the poor: the focus of Author AID. Journal of Public Health Policy, 27: 2196-203. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200071