Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers

European Review

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 227-237

  Pautasso, Marco ^a   Pautasso, Cesare ^b  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LUGANO   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GUIDELINE; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; LITERATURE REVIEW;

EID: 77951536227     PISSN: 10627987     EISSN: 14740575     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1062798709990275     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. A. Bruce, C. Lyall, J. Tait and R. Williams (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures, 36, 457-470. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003. (Pubitemid 38381769)
2. A. L. Porter and I. Rafols (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81, 719-745. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2.
3. A. Buanes and S. Jentoft (2009) Building bridges: institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity. Futures, 41, 446-454. doi:10.1016/j. futures.2009.01.010.
4. C. Pohl (2005) Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures, 37, 1159-1178. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.02.009. (Pubitemid 41294379)
5. P. A. Lawrence (2003) The politics of publication-authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature, 422, 259-261. doi:10.1038/422259a. (Pubitemid 36378340)
6. B. K. Forscher (1964) Rules for referees. Science, 150, 319-321.
7. S. Goldbeck-Wood (1998) What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? British Medical Journal, 316, 86.
8. F. G. Hoppin (2002) How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166, 1019-1023. doi:10.1164/rccm.200204-324OE. (Pubitemid 35178697)
9. P. E. Bourne and A. Korngreen (2006) Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology, 2, e110. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110. (Pubitemid 44495712)
10. A. J. Smith (1990) The task of the referee. IEEE Computer, 23, 46-51.
11. J. M. Provenzale and R. J. Stanley (2005) A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. American Journal of Radiology, 185, 848-854. doi:10.2214/AJR.05. 0782.
12. G. Laudel (2006) Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation, 15, 57-68. (Pubitemid 44544942)
13. V. B. Mansilla (2006) Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. Research Evaluation, 15, 17-29.
14. C. Lee (2006) Perspective: peer review of interdisciplinary scientific papers. Nature, online debate on peer review, doi:10.1038/nature05034.
15. P. Rosenbaum (2005) On the value of being a journal reviewer. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 47, 147doi:10.1017/ S0012162205000265. (Pubitemid 40277817)
16. E. De Schutter (2008) Reviewing multi-disciplinary papers: a challenge in neuroscience? Neuroinformatics, 6, 253-255. doi:10.1007/s12021-008-9034-x.
17. K. Lasater, A. L. Ray, M. J. Driever, A. Rosenfeld and K. J. Bradley (2008) Creating international conference submission and review guidelines to facilitate transnational dialogue. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39, 473-479.
18. J. T. Klein (2006) Afterword: the emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15, 75-80.
19. T. Ramadier (2004) Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies. Futures, 36, 423-439. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.009. (Pubitemid 38381767)
20. D. A. Booth (2008) Appetite: peer-reviewed research across the disciplines. Appetite, 51, 231-232. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.04.005.
21. J. T. Klein (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S116-S123. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010. (Pubitemid 351932073)
22. M. E. Hochberg, J. M. Chase, N. J. Gotelli, A. Hastings and S. Naeem (2009) The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecology Letters, 12, 2-4. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01276.x.
23. H. M. Müller, E. E. Kenny and P. W. Sternberg (2004) Textpresso: an ontology-based information retrieval and extraction system for biological literature. PLoS Biology, 2, 1984-1988. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020309. (Pubitemid 40280495)
24. H. M. Müller, R. Rangarajan, T. K. Teal and P. W. Sternberg (2008) Textpresso for neuroscience: searching the full text of thousands of neuroscience research papers. Neuroinformatics, 6, 195-204. doi:10.1007/s12021- 008-9031-9040
25. J. L. Fink, S. Kushch, P. R. Williams and P. E. Bourne (2008) BioLit: integrating biological literature with databases. Nucleic Acids Research, 36, W385-W389. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn317.
26. M. Errami, Z. H. Sun, T. C. Long, A. C. George and H. R. Garner (2009) Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Research, 37, 921-924. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn546.
27. D. W. Lawrence and L. Laflamme (2009) Using online databases to find journal articles on injury prevention and safety promotion topics: how do SafetyLit subscribers use other databases? Safety Science, 47, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.01.004.
28. F. Lufrano and P. Staiti (2009) A bibliometric analysis of the international literature in supercapacitors. International Journal of Electrochemical Science, 4, 173-186.
29. P. E. Valkimadi, D. E. Karageorgopoulos, H. Vliagoftis and M. E. Falagas (2009) Increasing dominance of English in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics, 81, 219-223. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2139-z.
30. C. B. Begg and J. A. Berlin (1988) Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 151, 419-463.
31. P. J. Easterbrook, J. A. Berlin, R. Gopalan and D. R. Matthews (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337, 867-872.
32. M. Jasienski (2009) Garfield's demon and 'surprising' or 'unexpected' results in science. Scientometrics, 78, 347-353. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1979-2.
33. G. L. A. Fry (2001) Multifunctional landscapes-towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 159-168. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01) 00201-208
34. M. Hauser and E. Fehr (2007) An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology, 5, e107. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107. (Pubitemid 46631848)
35. D. Imboden (2009) Scientific publishing: the dilemma of research funding organizations. European Review, 17, 23-31. doi:10.1017/S1062798709000544.
36. D. Weaire (2007) Time for a rethink of research proposal evaluation? European Review, 15, 275-282. doi:10.1017/S1062798707000300. (Pubitemid 47023547)