Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals

Journal of Applied Physiology

Volumn 115, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 295-296

  Raff, Hershel ^a,c   Brown, Dennis ^b  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c ST LUKE S MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STANDARD;

PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84881432564     PISSN: 87507587     EISSN: 15221601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00565.2013     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Badger K. The Faculty of 1000 Biology factor will revolutionize scientific evaluation and publishing. Hypothesis 3: 10-12, 2005.
2. Cicchetti DV. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci 14: 119-135, 1991.
3. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 287: 2762-2765, 2002.
4. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280: 237-240, 1998.
5. Harnad S. Implementing peer review on the net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. In: The Electronic Frontier, edited by Peek R. and Newby G. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 103-108, 1996.
6. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263: 1438-1441, 1990.
7. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci 63: 1-2, 2012.
8. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: a randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 280: 240-242, 1998.
9. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 263: 1321-1322, 1990.
10. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1: 161-175, 1977.
11. Mandavilli A. Trial by twitter. Nature 469: 286-287, 2011.
12. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123: 1964-1969, 2000.
13. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99: 178-182, 2006.
14. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280: 234-237, 1998.
15. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318: 23-27, 1999.