TheevaluationofresearchpapersintheXXIcentury. The open peer discussion system of the world economics association

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue AUGUST, 2012, Pages

  Ietto Gillies, Grazia ^a,b  

^a LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Academic journals; Economics; Open peer review; Research evaluation; World economics association

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC JOURNAL; EVALUATION SYSTEM; JOURNAL PUBLICATION; PEER DISCUSSIONS; PEER REVIEW; RATING SYSTEM; RESEARCH EVALUATION; SPECIFIC PROBLEMS;

ECONOMICS; MEDICAL COMPUTING;

NEUROLOGY;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ECONOMIC RECESSION; EVALUATION RESEARCH; FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 84865966691     PISSN: 16625188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00054     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bachmann, T. (2011). Fair and open evaluation may call for temporarily hidden authorship, caution when counting the votes, and transparency of the full pre-publication procedure. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5:61. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00061
2. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 3, 198-216.
3. Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., Osman, N., Ragone, A., Sierra, C., and Wassef, A. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5:56. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056
4. Campanario, J. M. (1995). Commentary: on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Sci. Commun. 16, 304-325.
5. Campanario, J. M. (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Sci. Commun. 19, 181-211.
6. Campanario, J. M. (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Sci. Commun. 19, 277-306.
7. Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic failure. Public Choice 116, 205-223.
8. Frey, B. S., and Osterloh, M. (2007). Evaluations: Hidden Costs, Questionable Benefits, and Superior Alternatives. Zurich: IEW Working Paper Series No. 302, February.
9. Fullbrook, E. (2003). The Crisis in Economics. The Post-Autistic Economics Movement. London, UK: Routledge.
10. Gans, J. S., and Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How the mighty have fallen: rejected classic articles by leading economists. J. Econ. Perspect. 8, 165-179.
11. Garfield, E. (1986). Refereeing and peer review. Part 2. The research on refereeing and alternatives to the present system. Curr. Contents 11, 3-12.
12. Gillies, D. (2008). How Should Research Be Organised? London, UK: College Publications.
13. Gillies, D. (2012). 'Economics and research assessment systems,' in Economic Thought. History, Philosophy and Methodology, Vol. 1, 23-47.
14. Ginsparg, P. (2002). 'Can Peer Review be better Focused?' Available online at http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/ginsparg
15. Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1438-1441.
16. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, (2011). 'Peer Review in Scientific Publications' Eighth Report of Session 2-010-12, Vol 1, HC 856, July, London, UK: The Stationary Office Ltd. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/peer-review/
17. Ietto-Gillies, G. (2008). A XXI-century alternative to XX-century peer review Real-World Economics Review, 45, 10-22, March. www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue45/IettoGillies45
18. Ietto-Gillies, G. (2010). 'A XXI alternative to XX century Peer Review,' in Production, Distribution and Trade: Alternative Perspectives. Essays in Honour of Sergio Parrinello, eds A. Birolo, D. Foley and H. D. Kurz, (London, UK: Routledge), 333-348.
19. Ietto-Gillies, G. (2012). Open peer review, open access and a house of commons report, Real World Economics Review, issue n. 60, 20 June, 74-91. http://rwer.wordpress.net/PAEReview/issue60/IettoGillies60.pdf
20. Kravitz, D. J., and Baker, C. I. (2011). Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5:55. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
21. Lee, F. (2007). The research assessment exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in british universities. Cambridge J. Econ. 31, 309-325.
22. Lee, F. (2008). 'Heterodox economics,' in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edn. eds S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume (Palgrave Macmillan). http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article
23. Lee, C. (2012). Open peer review by a selected-papers network. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:1. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00001
24. Legendre, A. M. (1995). Peer review of manuscripts for biomedical journals. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 207, 36-38.
25. Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:33. doi: 10.3389/fncom. 2012.00033
26. Priem, J., and Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:19. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
27. The Financial Times. (2009). 'An acute talent for innovation,' February 2nd.
28. The Guardian. (2011). Nobel vindication for once-ridiculed researcher. Oct 6th, 21.