Improving peer review in scholarly journals

European Science Editing

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 41-43

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Mungra, Philippa ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Confidentiality; Peer review; Periodicals as topic; Research standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960920337     PISSN: 02583127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2011;45:199-245.
2. Bornmann L. Does the journal peer review select the 'best' from among the work submitted? The state of empirical research. IETE Technical Review 2010;27(2):93-96. doi: 10.4103/0256-4602.60162.
3. Ross PF. The sciences' self-management: manuscript refereeing, peer review, and goals in science. Lincoln, MA: Ross, 1980.
4. Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Peer review: advice to referees and contributors. Personality and Individual Differerences 1992;13(4):393-399.
5. Eisenhart M. The paradox of peer review: admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education 2002;32(2):241-255.
6. Smit C. Peer review: time for a change? Bioscience 2006;56(9): 712-713. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[712:PRTFAC]2.0.CO;2
7. Wessely S, Brugha T, Cowen P, Smith L, Paykel S. Do authors know who refereed their paper? A questionnaire survey. BMJ 1996;313(7066):1185.
8. Office of Management and Budget. Revised information quality bulletin for peer review. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, 2004.
9. Rowney JA, Zenisek TJ. Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. Canadian Psychology 1980;21:17-21.
10. Working double-blind. Nature 2008;451(7179):605-606. doi: 10.1038/451605b
11. Armstrong JS. Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 1997;3(1):63-84.
12. Cox D, Gleser L, Perlman M, Reid N, Roeder K. Report of the ad hoc committee on double-blind refereeing. Statistical Science 1993;8(3):310-317. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177010904
13. Brown RJC. Double anonymity and the peer review process. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2006;6:1274-1277. doi: 10.1100/ tsw.2006.228
14. Van Rooyen S. The evaluation of peer-review quality. Learned Publishing 2001;14(2):85-91.
15. Primack RB, Marrs R. Bias in the review process. Biological Conservation 2008;141(12):2919-2920. doi: 10.1016/j. biocon.2008.09.016
16. Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2009;4(1):62-64.
17. Good CD, Parente ST. A worldwide assessment of medical journal editors' practices and needs-results of a survey by the World Association of Medical Editors. South African Medical Journal 1999;4:397-401.
18. Ware M, Monham M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community-an international study. Bristol, UK: Publishing Research Consortium, 2008. http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
19. Budden AE, Aarssen L, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ, Tregenza T. Response to Whittaker: challenges in testing for gender bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2008;23(9):480-481. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.004
20. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2008;23(1):4-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
21. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006;295(14):1675-1680. doi: 10.1001/ jama.295.14.1675
22. Laband DN, Piette MJ. Does the blindness of peer review influence manuscript selection efficiency. Southern Economic Journal 1994;60(4):896-906.
23. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 1994;272(2):147-149. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.2.147
24. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280(3):240-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240
25. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006;99(4):178-182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
26. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? JAMA 1998;280(3):243-245. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.243
27. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002;287(21):2762-2765. doi: 10.1001/ jama.287.21.2762
28. Snodgrass R. Single-versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature. Sigmod Record 2006;35(3):8-21.
29. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. How masked is the "masked peer review" of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? Mayo Clin Proceedings 2006;81(5):705.
30. Marris E. Journal lays bare remarks from peer reviewers. Nature 2006;439(7077):642. doi: 10.1038/439642b
31. Koop T, Pöschl U. Systems: an open, two-stage peer-review journal. Nature 2006. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html. doi:10.1038/nature04988
32. Borgman CL. Scholarship in the digital age. Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.
33. Pöschl U. Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing 2004;17(2):105-113.
34. DeCoursey T. Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review. Nature 2006. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04991.html. doi:10.1038/ nature04991
35. Giannone DS. Medical writing at the periphery: the case of Italian journal editorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2008;7:97-107. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.003
36. Flowerdew J. Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: what can Goffman's "Stigma" tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2008;7:77-86. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002
37. Misak A, Marusic M, Marusic A. Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing 2005;14(2):122-131. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.001
38. Mangelsdorf K, Schlumberger A. ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing 1992;1(3):235-254. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A
39. Loonen MPJ, Hage JJ, Kon M. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2005;116(5):1461-1472. doi: 10.1097/01. prs.0000178796.82273.7c
40. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276(8):637-639. [updated 2010; cited 2011 Mar 30]. http://www.consort-statement.org.
41. Shashok K. Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? BMC Medical Research Methods 2008;8(3). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-3
42. Burrough-Boenisch J. Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing 2003;12:223-243. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7