Opening peer-review: The democracy of science

Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Shanahan, Daniel R ^a   Olsen, Bjorn R ^b  

^a BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; SCIENCE;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; SCIENCE;

EID: 84893345512     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14775751     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-5751-13-2     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. Keeping the minutes of science. Velterop JJM, Electronic library and visual information research (ELVIRA 2) Milton Keynes, Aslib: Proceedings of the second ELVIRA conference at De Montfort University, Collier M, Arnold K, 1995
2. National Research Council, On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2009
3. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Ploegh H, Nature 2011 472 391 10.1038/472391a 21525890
4. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? Walbot V, J Biol 2009 8 24 10.1186/jbiol125 19291274
5. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. Godlee F, JAMA 2002 287 2762 2765 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762 12038905 (Pubitemid 34591957)
6. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. Groves T, BMJ 2010 341 6424 10.1136/bmj.c6424 21081602
7. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Pöschl U, Front Comput Neurosci 2012 6 33 22783183
8. A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models. Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Moylan EC, F1000 Posters 2013 4 1252
9. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. Khan K, BMJ 2010 341 6425 10.1136/bmj.c6425 21081603
10. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R, BMJ 1999 318 23 27 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23 9872878 (Pubitemid 29188893)
11. Peer review in PloS medicine. Editors TPSM, PLoS Med 2007 4 58 17411325