The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing

Frontiers in Plant Science

Volumn 4, Issue DEC, 2013, Pages

  da Silva, Jaime A Teixeira ^a  

^a NONE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Accountability; Bias; Editorial responsibilities; Ethics; Integrity; Predatory publishing; Snub publishing; Transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896993943     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1664462X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00485     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who does peer review? Science 342, 60-65. doi: 10.1126/science.342. 6154.60
2. Chase, J. M. (2013). The shadow of bias. PLoS Biol. 11:e1001608. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio. 1001608
3. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:63. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012. 00063
4. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013a). How to better achieve integrity in science publishing. Eur. Sci. Ed. 39, 97-98.
5. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013b). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. Asian Aust. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 7, 6-15.
6. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013c). Predatorypublishing: a quantitative assessment, the PredatoryScore. Asian Aust. J. PlantSci. Biotechnol. 7, 21-34.
7. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (in press). Snub publishing: evidence from the Anthurium literature. Publish. Res. Q.