Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 132-161

  Mulligan, Adrian ^a   Hall, Louise ^a   Raphael, Ellen ^b  

^a ELSEVIER MASSON   (France)

^b Sense About Science USA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

evaluation; publishing; questionnaires

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION; ONLINE SURVEYS; PEER REVIEW; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH PAPERS; SCHOLARLY RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES;

PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SURVEYS;

REVIEWS;

EID: 84871216979     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22798     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Björk, B., Roos A., &, Lauri, M., (2009). Scientific journal publishing: Yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research, 14 (1), paper 391.
2. Campbell, P., (2006). " Nature peer review trial and debate." Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html
3. Goodman, S.N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S.W., &, Fletcher, R.H., (1994). Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121 (1), 11-21.
4. Grainger, D.W., (2007). Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28, 5199-5203. (Pubitemid 47488482)
5. Harley, D., Acord, S.K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., &, Judson, K.C., (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
6. Horrobin, D.F., (2001). Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Journal of Pharmacological Sciences, 22, 51-52. (Pubitemid 32146472)
7. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Folse, S.B., &, Davidoff, F., (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), art. no. MR000016. p 3
8. Lerner, E., (2003). " Fraud shows peer-review flaw." The Industrialist Physicist, 8 (6), 12-17.
9. Mabe, M., &, Amin, M., (2002). " Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: Author-reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing." Aslib Proceedings, 54 (33), 149-157.
10. Meadows, A.J., (1998). Communicating research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11. Mine, S., (2009). The roles and place of arXiv in scholarly communication. Library and Information Science, 61, 25-58.
12. Mulligan, A., &, Raphael, E., (2010). Peer review in a changing world-preliminary findings of a global study. Serials, 23 (1), 25-34.
13. Myers, D., (2009) The peer-review system is broken. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Peer-Review-System-Is/48187/
14. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H., Huntington, P., &, Rowlands, I., (2005). In their very own words: Authors and scholarly journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 18 (3), 212-220. (Pubitemid 41019762)
15. Nicholas, D., &, Rowlands, I., (2006). The changing scholarly communication landscape: An international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 19, 31-55. (Pubitemid 43156052)
16. Patterson, M., (2010). PLoS ONE: Editors, contents and goals. Retrieved on from http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2010/05/plos-one-editors-contents-and-goals/
17. Peters, D., &, Ceci, S.J., (1982). A naturalistic study of the peer review process in psychology: The fate of published articles, resubmitted. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 4-17.
18. Pöschl, U., (2010). Interactive open access publishing and peer review: The effectiveness and perspectives of transparency and self-regulation in scientific communication and evaluation. LIBER Quarterly, 19, 293-314.
19. Priem, J., &, Hemminger, B., (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15 (7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/ 2874/2570
20. Rennie, D., (2003) Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale in, F. Godlee, &, T. Jefferson, (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Cornwall, UK: BMJ Publishing Group.
21. Resnik, D.B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., &, Peddada, S., (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14 (3), 305-310.
22. Rose, D., (2010). Lancet journal retracts Andrew Wakefield MMR scare paper. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life-and-style/health/ article7012267.ece
23. Shatz, D., (2004) Peer review: A critical inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
24. Smith, R., (1999) Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ, 1318, 4-5. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4 (Pubitemid 29188889)
25. Souder, L., (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24, 55-74.
26. Spier, R.E., (2002). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8 (1), 99-108.
27. Swan, A., &, Brown, S., (2003). Authors and electronic publishing: What authors want from the new technology. Learned Publishing, 16 (1), 28-33. (Pubitemid 36136738)
28. Swan, A., &, Brown, S., (1999). What authors want: The ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing, 12 (3), 170-172.
29. Taraborelli, D., (2008). Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In, P. Hassanal, A. Ramrajsingh, D. Randall, P. Salembier, &, M. Tixier, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 99-110). Carry-le-Rouet.
30. University of California Office of Scholarly Communication, The California Digital Library eScholarship Program, and Greenhouse Associates, Inc. (2007). Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors: Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California. Oakland, CA. Retrieved http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-survey-full- 20070828.pdf
31. Van Noorden, R., (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26-28.
32. Van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., &, Evans, S.J.W., (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, c5729.
33. 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. BMJ, 318, 23-27. (Pubitemid 29188893)
34. Wakefield, A.J., Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D.M., Malik, M., Walker-Smith, J.A., (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351 (9103), 637-641. (Pubitemid 28098447)
35. Ware, M., (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16 (1), 23-53.
36. Ware, M., &, Monkman, M., (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community an international study. Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.publishingresearch.net/ PeerReview.htm
37. Weller, A., (2001). Editorial peer review: It's strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
38. Wennerås, C., &, Wold, A., (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387, 341-343.
39. Ziman, J.M., (1968). Public Knowledge: an essay concerning the social development of science. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Zuckerman, H., &, Merton, R.K., (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9 (1), 66-100.