Learning to be confident and capable journal reviewers: An Australian perspective

Learned Publishing

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 56-61

  Lu, Yanping ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862957105     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20120108     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Chubin, D.E. and Hackett, E.J. Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990. p. 2.
2. Loonen, M.P.J., Hage, J.J., and Kon, M. 2005. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 116: 1461-1472. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000178796.82273.7c
3. Peters, D.P. and Ceci, S.J. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 5: 187-255. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011183
4. Schriger, D.L., Sinha, R., Schroter, S., Liu, P.Y., and Altman, D.G. 2006. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 48: 750-756. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.017
5. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., and Smith, R. 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 328: 673. doi:10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE
6. th edn. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 1037.
7. Osborne, M.D. and Brady, D.J. 2002. The room is long and narrow. Research in Science Education, 32: 163-170, see 165. doi: 10.1023/A:1016021910755
8. Atkinson, M. 1994. Regulation of science by 'peer review'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 25: 147-158. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(94)90025-6
9. Burnham, J.C. 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1323-1329, see 1325. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003
10. Henderson, A. 2001. Undermining peer review. Society, 38: 47-54, see 47.doi:10.1007/s12115-001-1040-7
11. Callaham, M.L. and Tercier, J. 2007. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PloS Medicine, 4: 32-40. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040144
12. Schroter, S. and Groves, T. 2004. BMJ training for peer reviewers. British Medical Journal, 328: 658. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.658
13. Walker, G. E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C., and Hutchings, P. The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2008.
14. Forbes, I. 2003. Perceptions of cutting edge research in UK social science. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences 16: 271-291, see 272. doi:10.1080/1351161032000126044
15. Bedeian, A.G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management: Learning and Education, 3: 198-216, see 201. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2004.13500489