A troubled tradition

American Scientist

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 24-27

  Resnik, David B ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^b McMahan Research Laboratories   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANNUAL REVIEW; LITERATURE REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 79251545544     PISSN: 00030996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: 10.1511/2011.88.24     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Committee on Publication Ethics. 2010. Code of Conduct. http://publicationethics.org/ files/u2/New-Code.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2010.
2. Fisher, M., S. B. Friedman and B. Strauss. 1994. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 143-46.
3. Godlee, F., C. Gale and C. Martyn. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 237-40.
4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2010. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/urm-main. html. Accessed September 6, 2010.
5. Justice, A. C., et al. 1998. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomised controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 240-242.
6. Kravitz, R., et al. 2010. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 5: e10072.
7. McNutt, R. A., et al. 1990. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized triaL Journal of the American Medical Association. 263: 1371-76.
8. Nylenna, M., P. Riis and Y. Karlsson. 1994. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 149-51.
9. Peters, D., and Ceci, S. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Science 5: 187-255.
10. Resnik D. B., C. Gutierrez-Ford and S. Peddada. 2008. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics 14: 305-10.
11. Ross, J. S. et al. 2006. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association 295: 1675-80.
12. Van Rooyen, S., et al. 1998. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 234-237.
13. Van Rooyen, S., et al. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal 317: 23-27.
14. Walsh, E., et al. 2000. Open peer review: A randomized controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 176: 47-5