Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue FEBRUARY 2012, 2012, Pages

  Sandewall, Erik ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH COMMUNITIES; SCALING-UP; SELECTION PROCESS; TWO STAGE;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EXPERIMENTS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE; ETHICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOMENCLATURE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SYMPOSIUM; WORKSHOP;

EID: 84856770012     PISSN: 16625188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00009     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Marcia Angell and Jerome P. Kassirer: The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited. New England Journal of Medicine, November 7, 1991.
2. Dale J. Benos et al (18 authors): The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 31, pp. 145-152, 2007.
3. Mark S. Frankel, Roger Elliott, Martin Blume, Jean-Manuel Bourgois, Bernt Hugenholtz, Mats G. Lindquist, Sally Morris and Erik Sandewall: Defining and Certifying Electronic Publication in Science. Learned Publishing, vol. 13 (2000), pages 251-258.
4. Trisha Gura: Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked. Nature 416, pp 258-260, 21 March 2002.
5. Stevan Harnad: Listserv comment on 'Open Peer Commentary: A Supplement, Not a Substitute, for Peer Review." June 1997. Available at http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9706&L=serialst&D=0&P=4500&F=P.
6. Matt Hodgkinson: Open Peer Review and Community Peer Review. Blog item dated 2007-06-28. An excellent overview of different types of alternative peer review schemes.
7. Karim Khan: Is open peer review the fairest system? No. British Medical Journal, November, 2010; to be cited as: BMJ 2010; 341:c6425
8. T. Koop and U. Poschl: An open, two-stage peer review journal. Nature, 30 July 2006.
9. Nature, Editorial: Overview, Nature's peer review trial. Nature, December 2006.
10. Nature Neuroscience, Editorial: Revolutionalized Peer Review?. Nature Neuroscience 8; 4: 397.
11. Robert Parker: Response to Sandewall's alternative view to peer review In: AAAS/UNESCO/ICSU Workshop on Developing Practices and Standards for Electronic Publishing in Science, Paris, France, 12-14 October, 1998.
12. Erik Sandewall (1997A): A Neo-Classical Structure for Scientific Publication and Reviewing. Linkoping Electronic Articles on Academic Policies and Trends, Vol. 2(1997): nr 1.
13. Erik Sandewall (1997B): Publishing and Reviewing in the ETAI. In: Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1 (1997), pp. 1-12.
14. Erik Sandewall: Opening up the process. Nature, 2006.
15. Erik Sandewall: Extending the concept of publication: Factbases and knowledgebases. Learned Publishing, 2008, (21), 2, 123-131.
16. Erik Sandewall: Experience of Two-Stage Peer Review in the ETAI, 19972001. International Symposium on Peer Review, 2009.
17. Erik Sandewall: Exercising Moral Copyrights for Evolving Publications. Scie Com Info, Vol. 6, No. 3 (2010)
18. Jerry Suls and Rene Martin: The Air We Breathe. A Critical Look at the Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 4 (2009), Nr. 1, pp. 40-50.