Toward a new model of scientific publishing: Discussion and a proposal

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue DECEMBER, 2011, Pages 1-12

  Kravitz, Dwight J ^a   Baker, Chris I ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Neuroscience; Peer review; Publishing

Indexed keywords

AS DISTRIBUTION; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; CURRENT SYSTEM; HIGH QUALITY; NEUROSCIENCE; NEW MODEL; ON-LINE ACCESS; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW SYSTEM; PRIORITIZATION; SCIENTIFIC MERITS; PRIMARY CURRENTS;

MACHINERY; PAPER; PUBLISHING; REDUNDANCY; COMMERCE;

REVIEWS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ALGORITHM; BIOMEDICINE; BIOSTATISTICS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DYNAMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; NEUROSCIENCE; ONLINE SYSTEM; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTION; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH PRIORITY; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STATISTICAL MODEL; EDITOR; HUMAN; MACHINE; MECHANICS; MODEL; PUBLISHING; RECEPTIVE FIELD; REWARD; SCIENTIST;

EID: 82955236217     PISSN: 16625188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. Fabiato, A. (1994). Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc. Res. 28, 11-34.
2. Lipworth, W. L., Kerridge, I. H., Carter, S. M., and Little, M. (2011). Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 1056-1063.
3. Peters, D. P., and Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer- review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav. Brain Sci. 5, 187-195.
4. Peters, D. P., and Ceci, S. J. (1984). How blind is blind review? Am. Psychol. 39,1491-1494.
5. Suls, J., and Martin, R. (2009). The air we breath: a critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 40-50.
6. UK House of Commons. (2004). The Origin of the Scientific Journal and the Process of Peer Review. Available at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13105/ 2/399we23.htm
7. 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 randomized trial. Br. Med. J. 318, 23-27.
8. Wright, G. (1994). Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc. Res. 28, 1144-1144.
9. Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., and Al-Ubadli, O. (2008). Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 5, e201. doi: 10.371/journal.pmed.0050201