The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature

Learned Publishing

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 55-74

  Souder, Lawrence ^a  

^a DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80255136546     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20110109     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. Horton, R. 2000. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. Medical Journal of Australia, 172: 148-149.
2. Spier, R.E. 2002. Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(1), 99-108.
3. Meadows, A.J. Communicating Research. San Diego, Academic Press, 1998.
4. Rowland, F. 2002. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247-258.
5. Resnik, D.B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., and Peddada, S. 2008. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 305-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4
6. Rosenfeld, R.M. 2010. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 142(4), 472-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.010
7. Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxford, Blackwell, 2007.
8. Morton, N.S. 2009. Publication ethics. Pediatric Anesthesia, 19(10, Special Issue): 1011-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03086.x
9. Alexandrov, A.V., Hennerici, M.G., and Norrving, B. 2009. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 28 (3), 243-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000228588
10. Kempers, R.D. 2002. Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Fertility and Sterility, 77(5), 883-888.
11. Hames
12. Kronick, D.A. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1321-1322.
13. Weller, A. C. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ, Information Today, 2001.
14. DeVries, D.R., Marschall, E.A., and Stein, R.A. 2009. Exploring the peer review process: what is it, does it work, and can it be improved? Fisheries, 34(6): 270-279.
15. Campanario, J.M. 1998. Peer review for journals as it stands today - part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547098019003002
16. Campanario, J.M. 1998. Peer review for journals as it stands today - part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547098019004002
17. Hoffmann, R. 2008. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics, 40(9): 1047-1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.f.217
18. Marchionini, G. 2008. Editorial: Reviewer merits and review control in an age of electronic manuscript management systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 26(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1402256.1402264
19. Penrose, A.M. and Katz, S.B. Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions of Scientific Discourse, 3rd edn, New York, Pearson, 2010.
20. Merton, R. The Sociology of Science; Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973.
21. Ziman, J., Real Science: What It Is & What It Means, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
22. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication, http://www.icmje.org/, accessed 30 July 2010.
23. Campanario, p. 300.
24. Riisgard, H., 2004. Peer review: journal articles versus research proposals. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 277: 301-309.
25. Grainger, D.W. 2007. Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28(34): 5199-5203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004
26. Crigger, N.J. 1998. What we owe the author: rethinking editorial peer review. Nursing Ethics, 5(5): 451-458.
27. Cain, J. 1999. Why be my colleague's keeper? Moral justifications for peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(4): 531-540.
28. Sense About Science. Peer Review Survey 2009: Preliminary Findings, http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/395 (accessed 30 July 2010).
29. Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., and Rowlands, I. 2009. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6): 348-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.028324
30. Landy, D.C., Coverdale, J.H., McCullough, L.B., and Sharp, R.R. 2009. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: Cause for concern. Academic Medicine, 84(4): 495-497.
31. Atkinson, M. 2001. 'Peer review' culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2): 193-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8
32. Jefferson, T. 1998. Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2): 135-140.
33. Tsui, A.S. and Hollenbeck, J.R. 2009. Successful authors and effective reviewers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2): 259-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428108318429
34. Riisgard, p. 309.
35. Atkinson, p. 196.
36. Williams, H.C. 2004. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1): 79-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049
37. Anderson, M.S., Ronning, E.A., De Vries, R., and Martinson, B.C. 2007. The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4): 437-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
38. Osborne, N.J., Payne, D., and Newman, M.L. 2009. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(12): 55-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265160903318343
39. Osborne, N.J. 2011. Point of view. Reporting animal research - worthy of a rethink? Learned Publishing, 24(1): 5-7.
40. Rowland, p. 250.
41. Shatz, D. Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
42. Weller, p. 96.
43. Sandstrom, U. and Hallsten, M. 2008. Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74(2): 175-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3
44. Luty, J., Arokiadass, S.M.R., Easow, J.M., and Anapreddy, J.R. 2009. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35: 200-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.026740
45. Blackburn, J. and Hakel, M. 2006. An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science, 17(5): 378-382.
46. Meadows, p. 189.
47. Tregenza, T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(8): 349-350.
48. Petty, R., Fleming, M., and Fabrigar, L. 1999. The review process at PSPB: correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2): 188-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002005
49. Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L.W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., and Lortie, C.J. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1): 4-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
50. Engqvist, L. and Frommen, J.G. 2008. Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias. Animal Behaviour, 76(3), e1-e2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.023
51. Webb, T.J., O'Hara, B., and Freckleton, R.P. 2008. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(7): 351-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.003
52. Budden, A.E., Lortie, C.J., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L., Koricheva, J., and Leimu, R. 2008. Response to Webb et al.: Double-blind review: accept with minor revisions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(7): 353-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.001
53. Borsuk, R.M., Aarssen, L.W., Budden, A.E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., et al. 2009. To name or not to name: the effect of changing author gender on peer review. Bioscience, 59(11): 985-989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.10
54. Grod, O.N., Lortie, C.J., and Budden, A.E. 2010. Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(4): 187-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090048
55. Marsh, H.W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., and O'Mara, A. 2009. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79(3): 1290-1326. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334143
56. Reinhart, M. 2009. Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics, 81(3): 789-809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2220-7
57. Viner, N., Powell, P., and Green, R. 2004. Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage. Research Policy, 33(3): 443-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.005
58. Jayasinghe, U.W., Marsh, H.W., and Bond, N. 2001. Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: the Australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4): 343-364. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594134
59. Isenberg, S., Sanchez, E., and Zafran, K. 2009. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 93: 881-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.151886
60. Lane, J.A. and Linden, D.J. 2009. Is there gender bias in the peer review process at journal of neurophysiology? Journal of Neurophysiology, 101(5): 2195-2196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00196.2009
61. Fesperman, S.F., West, C.S., Bischoff, C.J., Algood, C.B., Vieweg, J., and Dahm, P. 2008. Study characteristics of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the southeastern section of the American Urological Association (1996-2005). Journal of Urology, 179(2): 667-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.070
62. Heckenberg, A. and Druml, C. 2010. Gender aspects in medical publication - the Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122(5-6): 141-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00508-010-1302-8
63. Abu-Saad, I. 2008. Where inquiry ends: the peer review process and indigenous standpoints. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(12), 1902-1918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764208318939
64. Opthof, T., Coronel, R., and Janse, M.J. 2002. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovascular Research, 56(3): 339-346.
65. Wellington, J. and Nixon, J. 2005. Shaping the field: the role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5): 643-655. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036103
66. Belcher, D.D. 2007. Seeking acceptance in an English- only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1): 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
67. Meneghini, R., Packer, A.L., and Nassi-Calo, L. 2008. Articles by Latin American authors in prestigious journals have fewer citations. PLoS ONE, 3(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003804
68. Byrne, E.F. 2002. Reviewing academic books: are there ethical issues? Journal of Information Ethics, 11(1): 57-65.
69. Rasmussen, J., Langer, V., and Alroe, H.F. 2006. Bias in peer review of organic farming grant applications. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(2): 181-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-005-6105-6
70. Flowerdew, J. 2001. Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121-150. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587862
71. Benfield, J.R. and Howard, K.M. 2000. The language of science. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 18(6): 642-648.
72. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., and Daniel, H. 2008. Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific miscon-duct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3): 415-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2
73. Hall, P.A., Poulsom, R., and Wixon, J. 2009. How does the journal of pathology deal with conflict of interest? Journal of Pathology, 219(4): 396-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/path.2621
74. Ancker, J.S. and Flanagin, A. 2007. A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2): 147-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9011-z
75. Bosetti, F. and Toscano, C.D. 2008. Is it time to standardize ethics guiding the peer review process? Lipids, 43(2): 107-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11745-007-3134-5
76. James, M.J., Cook-Johnson, R.J., and Cleland, L.G. 2007. Selective COX-2 inhibitors, eicosanoid synthesis and clinical outcomes: a case study of system failure. Lipids, 42(9): 779-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11745-007-3069-x
77. Spielmans, G.I., Biehn, T.L., and Sawrey, D.L. 2010. A case study of salami slicing: pooled analyses of duloxetine for depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 79(2): 97-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000270917
78. Harrison, C. 2004. Peer review, politics and pluralism, Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5): 357-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.005
79. Wellington and Nixon, p. 646.
80. Spier, p. 106.
81. Mallard, G., Lamont, M., and Guetzkow, J. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science Technology Human Values, 34(5): 573-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329381
82. Shimp, C.P. 2004. Scientific peer review: a case study from local and global analyses, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(1): 103-116.
83. Charlton, B.G. 2004. Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'Col consultancy'. Medical Hypotheses, 63(2): 181-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2004.06.001
84. Brown, R.J.C. 2007. Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community. Learned Publishing, 20(2): 131-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/174148507X185108
85. Regehr, G. and Bordage, G. 2006. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education, 40: 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x
86. Bence, V. and Oppenheim, C. 2004. The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise. Journal of Information Science, 30(4): 347-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551504045854
87. Atkinson, p. 197.
88. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., and Wilkinson, G. 2000. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1): 47-51.
89. Smith, J., Joseph A., Nixon, R., Bueschen, A.J., Venable, D. D., and Henry, H.H., II. 2002. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content. Journal of Urology, 168(5): 2123-2125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64315-7
90. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., and Smith, R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318(7175), 23-27.
91. Melero, R. and Lopez-Santovena, F. 2001. Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers. Food Science and Technology International, 7(6): 521-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1106/0MXD-YM6F-3LM6-G9EB
92. Singleton, A. 2004. Data protection and peer review. Learned Publishing, 17(4): 195-198.
93. Carmi, R. and Koch, C. 2007. Improving peer review with CARMA. Learned Publishing, 20(3), 173-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315107X204067
94. Marchionini, p. 25:4.
95. Tite, L. and Schroter, S. 2007. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61: 9-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817
96. Walsh et al., p. 49.
97. Williams, p. 81.
98. Weber, E.J., Katz, P.P., Waeckerle, J.F., and Callaham, M.L. 2002. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21): 2790-2793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2790
99. Hewings, M. 2004. An 'important contribution' or 'tiresome reading'? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3): 247-274.
100. Gosden, H. 2003. 'Why not give us the full story?': Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2): 87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1
101. Tobin, M.J. 2000. Reporting research, retraction of results, and responsibility. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 162(3): 773-774.
102. Miller, C.C. 2006. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management, 49(3): 425-431.
103. Hadjistavropoulos, T. and Bieling, P.J. 2000. When reviews attack: ethics, free speech, and the peer review process. Canadian Psychology, 41(3): 152-159.
104. Brand, R.A., Heckman, J.D., and Scott, J. 2004. Changing ethical standards in scientific publication. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 86(7): 937-938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B7.15819
105. Schein, M. and Paladugu, R. 2001. Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery, 129(6): 655-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.114549
106. Jefferson, p. 138.
107. Mojon-Azzi, S.M. and Mojon, D.S. 2004. Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmologica, 218: 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000074559
108. Durani, P. 2006. Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 59(9): 975-977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.11.039
109. Norman, I. and Griffiths, P. 2008. Duplicate publication and 'salami slicing': ethical issues and practical solutions. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9): 1257-1260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.07.003
110. Anonymous. 2005. The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials, 4(1): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat1305
111. Rogers, L. 1999. Salami slicing, shotgunning, and the ethics of authorship. American Journal of Roentgenology, 173(2): 265-265.
112. Berlin, L. 2009. Plagiarism, salami slicing, and Lobachevsky. Skeletal Radiology, 38(1): 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0599-0
113. von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., and Tramer, M.R. 2004. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(8): 974-980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.8.974
114. Eysenbach, G. and Kummervold, E.P. 2005. Is cybermedicine killing you? The story of a Cochrane disaster. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(2): e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.2.e21
115. Atlas, M.C. 2004. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2): 242-250. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC385306/
116. Budd, J.M., Sievert, M., and Schultz, T.R. 1998. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3): 296-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296
117. Neale, A.V., Northrup, J., Dailey, R., Marks, E., and Abrams, J. 2007. Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1): 5-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0003-1
118. Souder, L. 2010. A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it? Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1): 175-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9149-y
119. Redman, B.K., Yarandi, H.N., and Merz, J.F. 2008. Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(11): 807-809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023069
120. Sox, H.C. and Rennie, D. 2006. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(8), 609-613.
121. Pietrzak, W.S. 2010. A practical guide to effective journal peer reviewing. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 21(3): 631-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d8403c
122. Benos, D., Kirk, K., and Hall, J. 2003. How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(2): 47-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00057.2002
123. Freda, M.C., Kearney, M.H., Baggs, J.G., Broome, M.E., and Dougherty, M. 2009. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(2): 101-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007
124. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., and Smith, R. 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 328(7441): 673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE
125. Callaham M.L. and Tercier J. 2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4(1): e40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
126. Gough, N.R. 2009. Training for peer review. Science Signaling, 2(85). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.285tr2
127. DeVries, D.R., Marschall, E.A., and Stein, R.A. 2009. Exploring the peer review process: what is it, does it work, and can it be improved? Fisheries, 34(6): 270-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-34.6.270
128. Nelson, C.A., Freeman, S.R., and Dellavalle, R.P. 2009. Reviewing dermatology manuscripts and publications. Dermatologic Clinics, 27(2): 201-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2008.11.005
129. Mitroff, I. 1974. Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: a case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4): 579-595. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094423
130. Marchionini, p. 25:4.
131. Hoffman, p. 1048.
132. Holmes, D.S. 2008. Review of International Biohydrometallurgy Symposium, Frankfurt, 2007. Hydrometallurgy, 92(1-2): 69-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2008.01.003
133. Kelty, C.M., Burrus, C.S., and Baraniuk, R.G. 2008. Peer review anew: three principles and a case study in postpublication quality assurance. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(6): 1000-1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2008.921613
134. Alpert, J.S. 2007. Peer review: the best of the blemished? American Journal of Medicine, 120(4): 287-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.02.013
135. Jefferson, T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse, S., and Davidoff, F. 2007. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2, Art. No. MR000016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
136. 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: 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x
137. Koocher, G.P. and Keith-Spiegel, P. 2010. Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature, 466(7305): 438-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/466438a