Quantifying the volunteer effort of scientific peer reviewing

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 337-345

  Golden, Mary ^a,b   Schultz, David M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METEOROLOGY;

EXTRATERRESTRIAL ATMOSPHERES;

EID: 84859386064     PISSN: 00030007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00129.1     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Billaut, J.-C., D. Bouyssou, and P. Vincke, 2010: Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics, 84, 237-263.
2. Carlson, T. N., 2006: Deficiencies in the present funding process in meteorology. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 567-570. (Pubitemid 43811061)
3. Charney, J. G., R. Fjörtoft, and J. von Neumann, 1950: Numerical integration of the barotropic vorticity equation. Tellus, 2, 237-254.
4. Clapham, P., 2005: Publish or perish. Bioscience, 55, 390-391. (Pubitemid 40670207)
5. Dehon, C., A. McCathie, and V. Verardi, 2010: Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: A closer look at the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 83, 515-524.
6. Egghe, L., 2011: Problems with "Natural selection of academic papers." Scientometrics, 88, 663-667.
7. Geerts, B., 1999: Trends in atmospheric science journals: A reader's perspective. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 639-651. (Pubitemid 129570065)
8. Halilem, N., N. Amara, and R. Landry, 2011: Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada. Scientometrics, 86, 431-448.
9. Harper, K. C., 2008: Weather by the Numbers: The Genesis of Modern Meteorology. MIT Press, 308 pp.
10. Jorgensen, D. P., R. M. Rauber, K. F. Heideman, M. E. Fernau, M. A. Friedman, and A. L. Schein, 2007: The evolving publication process of the AMS. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1122-1134.
11. King, D., D. D. McDonald, and N. K. Roderer, 1981: Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use and Economics. Hutchinson Ross, 319 pp.
12. Li, Z., and Coauthors, 2007: The rapid growth of publications by atmospheric and oceanic scientists of Chinese origin. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 846-848. (Pubitemid 47570130)
13. Lock, S., and J. Smith, 1990: What do peer reviewers do? J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 263, 1341-1343. (Pubitemid 20069937)
14. McNutt, R. A., A. T. Evans, R. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher, 1990: The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 263, 1371-1376. (Pubitemid 20069943)
15. National Science Foundation, 2011: FY 2010 performance and financial highlights. NSF Report NSF11002, 6 pp. [Available online at www.nsf.gov/ publications/pub-summ.jsp?ods-key=nsf11002.]
16. Natural Environment Research Council, 2010: 2009-10 annual report and accounts. NERC Report HC 480, 100 pp. [Available online at www.nerc.ac.uk/ publications/annualreport/2010.]
17. Publishing Research Consortium, 2008: Peer Review in Scholarly Journals-Perspective of the Scholarly Community: An International Study. Publishing Research Consortium, 80 pp. [Available online at www. publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm.]
18. Research Councils UK, 2006: Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and Effectiveness of Peer Review Project. Research Councils UK, 77 pp. [Available online at www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/rcukprreport.pdf.]
19. Research Information Network, 2008: Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. Research Information Network, 88 pp. [Available online at www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and- disseminating-research/activities-costs-and-funding-flows-scholarlycommu.]
20. Roebber, P. J., and D. M. Schultz, 2011: Peer review, program officers and science funding. PLoS ONE, 6, e18680, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018680.
21. Roulston, M. S., 2006: The scientist's dilemma. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 571-572. (Pubitemid 43811062)
22. Schultz, D. M., 2009: Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 412 pp.
23. -, 2010: Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, 84: 277-292.
24. Weller, A. C., 2001: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 342 pp.
25. Wilson, R., and J. Lancaster, 2006: 'Referee factor' would reward a vital contribution. Nature, 441, 812; Corrigendum, 441, 1048.
26. Yankauer, A., 1990: Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 263, 1338-1340. (Pubitemid 20069936)
27. Zhou, P., and L. Leydesdorff, 2006: The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Res. Policy, 35, 83-104. (Pubitemid 43186009)