How should we deal with the growing peer-review problem?

Biogeochemistry

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-3

  Lajtha, Kate ^a   Baveye, Philippe C ^b,c  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERTAY DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^c RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957345701     PISSN: 01682563     EISSN: 1573515X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10533-010-9530-6     Document Type: Editorial

References (8)

1. Anonymous (2009) The unsung reviewer. Nat Struct Mol Biol 16(9): 899.
2. Baveye PC (2010) Sticker shock and looming tsunami: the high cost of academic serials in perspective. J Sch Publish 41(2): 191-215.
3. Baveye PC, Charlet L, Georgakakos KP et al (2009) Ensuring that reviewers' time and effort are used efficiently. J Hydrol 365(1-2): 1-3.
4. Fox J, Petchey OL (2010) Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by "privatizing" the reviewer commons. Bull Ecolo Soc Am 91: 325-333.
5. Hauser M, Fehr E (2007) An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biol 5(4): e107. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pbio. 0050107.
6. Martin BR, Bell M, Callon M, Grupp H, Kodama F, Kuhlmann S, Fleming L, von Tunzelmann N, Powell W (2009) EES and the continuing evolution of research policy. Res Policy 38: 695-699.
7. Siegel D, Baveye PC (2010) Battling the paper glut!. Science 329: 1466.
8. Trimble SW, Grody WW, McKelvey B, Gad-el-Hak M (2010) The glut of academic publishing: a call for a new culture. Acad Quest 23(3): 276-286.