Rebound peer review: A viable recourse for aggrieved authors?

Antioxidants and Redox Signaling

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 293-296

  Sen, Chandan K ^a  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; EDITOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW;

AUTHORSHIP; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84855387797     PISSN: 15230864     EISSN: 15577716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/ars.2011.4424     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer (accessed November 20, 2011).
2. www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html (accessed November 20, 2011).
3. www.thefreedictionary.com/review (accessed November 20, 2011).
4. www.webmedcentral.com (accessed November 20, 2011).
5. Peer review and fraud. Nature 444: 971-972, 2006.
6. Systems: reviving a culture of scientific debate. Nature [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1038/nature05005.
7. UK Parliament comments on peer review. Nat Cell Biol 13: 1153, 2011.
8. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, La-France M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, Qadri Y, Sarfare S, Schultz K, Splittgerber R, Stephenson J, Tower C, Walton RG, and Zotov A. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 31: 145-152, 2007.
9. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 263: 1323-1329, 1990. (Pubitemid 20069934)
10. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, and Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 280: 229-231, 1998. (Pubitemid 28493890)
11. Day FC, Schriger DL, Todd C, and Wears RL. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 40: 329-333, 2002. (Pubitemid 34988558)
12. Gannon F. The essential role of peer review. EMBO Rep 2: 743, 2001. (Pubitemid 32982734)
13. Gitlin JM. Do we need an alternative to peer-reviewed journals? http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/do-we-need-an-alternative-to-peer- reviewed-journals.ars, accessed November 20, 2011.
14. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, and Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 121: 11-21, 1994.
15. Gupta P, Kaur G, Sharma B, Shah D, and Choudhury P. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatr 43: 479-489, 2006. (Pubitemid 44049649)
16. Horton R. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. Med J Aust 172: 148-149, 2000. (Pubitemid 30131302)
17. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, and Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 6: e22475, 2011.
18. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney-Folse S, and Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Art no. MR 2008:00016: 2008.
19. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, and Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS ONE 5: e10072, 2010.
20. Leek JT, Taub MA, and Pineda FJ. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy. PLoS ONE 6: e26895, 2011.
21. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1985.
22. Marusic A, Mestrovic T, Petrovecki M, and Marusic M. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996. Croat Med J 39: 3-9, 1998.
23. Newton DP. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors. Account Res 17: 130-145, 2010.
24. O'Dowd A. Experts deny claims that peer review system is in crisis. BMJ 342: d2858, 2011.
25. O'Dowd A. Peer review must stay as guarantee of quality, research leaders tell MPs. BMJ 342: d3656, 2011.
26. Pantin I. New Philosophy and old prejudices: aspects of the reception of copernicanism in a divided Europe. Stud Hist Philos Sci 30: 237-262, 1999.
27. Phillips JS. Expert bias in peer review. Curr Med Res Opin 27: 2229-2233, 2011.
28. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, and Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 348: 1480-1483, 1996. (Pubitemid 26400244)
29. Waltman L, van Eck NJ, van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS, and van Raan AF. On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Scientometrics 88: 1017-1022, 2011.
30. Weller AC. A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 84: 359-366, 1996. (Pubitemid 26304211)