Cooperation between referees and authors increases Peer review accuracy

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2011, Pages

  Leek, Jeffrey T ^a   Taub, Margaret A ^a   Pineda, Fernando J ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; AUTHOR; COOPERATION; GAME; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; ARTICLE; HUMAN RELATION;

HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 80655139027     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026895     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Fabiato A, (1994) Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 28: 1134-1139.
2. Wenneras C, Wold A, (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341-343.
3. Smith R, (1999) Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 318: 4-5.
4. Mietchen D, (2011) Peer reviews: make them public. Nature 473: 452.
5. Pulverer B, (2010) Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature 468: 29-31.
6. Pulverer B, (2011) Peer reviews: some are already public. Nature 474: 285.
7. Nature Web Focus Website. Accessed: October 10, 2001. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/.
8. Linkov F, Lovalekar M, Laporte R, (2006) Scientific Journals are "faith based": is there science behind peer review? J R Soc Med 99: 596-598.
9. Tite L, Schroter S, (2006) Evidence based publishing. BMJ 333: 366.
10. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F, (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287: 2784-2786.
11. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, (1998) Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 280: 240-242.
12. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N, (1999) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med 14: 622-624.
13. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ, (2010) Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341: c5729.
14. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R, (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318: 23-27.
15. Callaham M, McCulloch C, (2011) Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 57: 141-148.
16. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G, (2000) Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 176: 47-51.
17. Myerson RB, (1997) Game theory: analysis of conict Harvard University Press.
18. Knoll E, (1990) The communities of scientists and journal peer review. JAMA 263: 1330-1332.
19. Major Tests Website. Accessed: October 10, 2001. Available: http://majortests.com/.
20. Dreber A, Rand DG, Fudenberg D, Nowak MA, (2008) Winners don't punish. Nature 452: 348-351.
21. Ploegh H, (2011) End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature 472: 391.
22. Amazon Website. Accessed: October 10, 2011. Available: http://aws.amazon.com/.
23. vWorker Website. Accessed: October 10, 2011. Available: http://www.vworker.com/.
24. R Developers Website. Accessed: October 10, 2011. Available: http://www.r-project.org.
25. Diggle P, Heagerty P, Liang KY, Zeger SL, (2002) Analysis of longitudinal data Oxford Oxford University Press.