Refereeing academic articles in the information age

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 520-528

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC JOURNAL; INFORMATION AGE;

EDUCATION;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 84859906083     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01211.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bingham, C. M., Higgins, G., Coleman, R., &, Van der Weyden, M. B., (1998). The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer review study. Lancet, 352, 9126, 441-445. (Pubitemid 28362791)
2. Bornmann, L., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2010a). Reliability of reviewers' ratings when using public peer review: a case study. Learned Publishing, 23, 124-131.
3. Bornmann, L., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2010b). The validity of staff editors' initial evaluations of manuscripts: a case study of Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Scientometrics, 85, 681-687.
4. Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., &, Daniel, H.-D., (2010). A content analysis of referees' comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? Scientometrics, 83, 493-506.
5. Callahan, M., &, McCulloch, C., (2011). Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 57, 141-148.
6. Campanario, J. M., (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19, 3, 181-211.
7. Campanario, J. M., (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication, 19, 4, 277-306.
8. Donovan, S. K., (2009). Online review of manuscripts: more haste, less speed? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40, 440-445.
9. Elsevier (2010). Debating peer review. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from http://elsevier.com/wps/find/reviewershome.reviewers/ru-issue3a
10. Gould, T. H. P., (2011). Protocols and challenges to the creation of a cross disciplinary journal. Scholarly Publishing, 14, 2, 105-141.
11. Hames, I., (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals. Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Harley, D., &, Krzys Acord, S., (2011). Peer review in academic promotion and publishing: its meaning, locus, and future. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from
13. Hill, S., &, Provost, F., (2003). The myth of the double blind review? Author identification using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 5, 2, 179-184.
14. Hirschauer, S., (2010). Editorial judgments: a praxeology of "voting" in peer review. Social Studies of Science, 40, 1, 71-103.
15. Kravitz, R. K., Franks, P., Feldman, M. S., Gerrity, M., Byrne, C., &, Tierney, W. M., (2010). Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PloS ONE, 5, 4; article e-10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072
16. Kumashiro, K. K., Pinar, W. F., Graue, E., Grant, C. A., Benham, M. K. P., Heck, R. H., et al,. (2005). Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75, 3, 257-285. (Pubitemid 41498283)
17. Lipworth, W., &, Kerridge, I., (2011). Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer review. Social Epistemology, 25, 1, 97-121.
18. Marchioni, G., (2008). Editorial. Reviewer merits and reviewer control in an age of electronic management systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 26, 4, 1- 6.
19. Miller, J., &, Perrucci, R., (2001). Back stage at Social Problems: an analysis of the editorial decision process, 1993-1996. Social Problems, 48, 1, 93-110.
20. Pardeck, J. T., (1992). Are social work journal editorial boards competent? Some disquieting data with implications for research on social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 487-496.
21. Rowland, F., (2002). The peer review process. Learned Publishing, 15, 4, 247-258.
22. Schultz, D. M., (2010a). Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, 84, 277-292.
23. Schultz, D. M., (2010b). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91, 231-243. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1
24. Schwartz, S. J., &, Zamboanga, B. L., (2009). The peer-review and editorial system: ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 1, 54-61.
25. Smith, R., (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review. British Medical Journal, 318, 7175, 4.
26. Souder, L., (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24, 1, 55-74.
27. 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. British Medical Journal, 318, 7175, 23-27. (Pubitemid 29188893)
28. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., &, Wilkinson, G., (2000). Open peer review: a randomised control trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47-51. (Pubitemid 30051088)
29. Weller, A. C., (2001). Editorial peer review: its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
30. Weller, M., (2011). Ed Techie: the return on peer review. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no-good-reason/ publishing/
31. Wheeler, B., (2011). The ontology of the scholarly journal and the place of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42, 3, 307-322.