Should peer reviewers be suggested by authors?

Middle East Current Psychiatry

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 197-199

  Fawzi, Mounir H ^a  

^a ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873669618     PISSN: 20905408     EISSN: 20905416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.XME.0000418715.18651.8a     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: a utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. PloS One 2010; 5:e11344.
2. Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R. The impact factor and editorial decisions. Neurologia 2008; 23:342-348.
3. Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG, Norrving B. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovasc Dis 2009; 28:243-246.
4. Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R. The impact factor and editorial decisions. Neurologia 2008; 23:342-348.
5. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994; 121:11-21.
6. Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP, Cowling WR. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh 2010; 42:58-65.
7. Fawzi M. Critical appraisal: sifting the wheat from the chaff. Curr Psychiatry Egypt 2009;16200-16204.
8. Fawzi M. Publish or perish! But avoid scientific misconducts. Egypt J Psychiatry 2010; 30:1-6.
9. Fawzi M. COPE membership for MECPsych: a message behind the news. Middle East Curr Psychiatry 2011; 18:185-189.
10. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 32:310-317.
11. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007; 4:0032-0040.
12. Polak JF. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165:685-688.
13. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 1994; 272:149-151.
14. Alfonso F. The 'peer-review' process in biomedical journals: characteristics of 'elite' reviewers. Neurologia 2010; 25:521-529.
15. Schultz DM. Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics 2010; 84: 277-292.
16. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61:9-12.
17. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the 'gatekeepers' of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2003; 8:75-96.
18. Cullen DJ, Macaulay A. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal. Acad Med 1992; 67:856-859.
19. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982; 5:187-255.
20. Weiner BK, Weiner JP, Smith HE. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance? Spine J 2010; 10:209-211.
21. Tonks A. Reviewers chosen by authors. May be better than reviewers chosen by editors. Br Med J 1995; 311:210.
22. Moore JL, Neilson EG, Siegel V. Associate Editors at Journal of American Society of Nephrology. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 22: 1598-1602.
23. Rivara FP, Cummings P, Ringold S, Bergman AB, Joffe A, Christakis DA. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. J Pediatr 2007; 151:202-205.
24. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006; 4:13.
25. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006; 295:314-317.