Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape

Academic and Professional Publishing

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 15-52

  Hames, Irene ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Blinded review; Editorial decision making; Editors; Ethics; Manuscript management; Open review; Peer review; Peer review models; Post publication review; Reviewers; Scholarly publishing; Transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903013638     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978184334669250002-0     Document Type: Chapter

References (97)

1. Adams J., King C., Ma N. Global Research Report: China. Thomson Reuters November 2009, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/grr-china-nov09.pdf.
2. Adams J., King C., Singh V. Global Research Report: India.Thomson Reuters October 2009, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/grr-India-oct09_ag0908174.pdf.
3. Adams J., Pendlebury D. Global Research Report: Materials Science and Technology Thomson Reuters, June 2011, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/grr-materialscience.pdf.
4. ALPSP/EASE Current practice in peer review: results of a survey conducted during Oct/Nov 2000 (accessed 6 January 2012). http://www.alpsp.org/Ebusiness/Libraries/Publication_Downloads/Current_Practice_in_Peer_Review.sflb.ashx?download=true.
5. ALPSP, Group Kaufman-Wills A studyof the financial and non-financial effects of alternative business models for scholarly journals The facts about open access, (accessed 6 January 2012). http://www.alpsp.org/Ebusiness/ProductCatalog/Product.aspx?ID=47.
6. Antarctic Survey British Written evidence submitted to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Peer Review (8 March 2011, PR 40)., (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856vw_10.htm.
7. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990, 263:1323-1329.
8. Campbell P. Written evidence submitted to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Peer Review (10 March 2011, PR 60)., (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856we11.htm.
9. COPE How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper April 2011, (accessed 6 January 2012). http://www.publicationethics.org/files/COPE_plagiarism_discussion_%20doc_26%20Apr%2011.pdf.
10. COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors March 2011, (accessed 6 January 2012). http://www.publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20journal%20editors4.pdf.
11. COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers March 2011, (accessed 6 January 2012). http://www.publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20publishers%20FINAL_1_0.pdf.
12. Davis P. The Scholarly Kitchen Open access publisher accepts nonsense manuscript for dollars, 10 June 2009, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/.
13. Davis P. Physics papers and the arXiv. The Scholarly Kitchen 17 June 2009, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/17/physics-papers-and-the-arxiv/.
14. Davis P. Privatizing peer review - the PubCred proposal. The Scholarly Kitchen 16 September 2010, accessed 4 January 2012). http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/09/16/privatizing-peer-review/.
15. DeMaria A.N. Peer review: the weakest link. JACC (Journal of the American College of Cardiology) 2010, 55:1161-1162.
16. Elsevier Evidence given by Mayur Amin to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Peer Review 11 May 2001. Transcript of oral evidence, HC 856, Q127. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf.
17. Elsevier PeerChoice pilot general information (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/P04.cws_home/peerchoice.
18. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 2009, 4(5):e5738. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
19. Fox J., Petchey O.L. Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by 'privatizing' the reviewer commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 2010, 91:325-333.
20. Fuyuno I., Cyranoski D. Cash for papers: putting a premium on publication. Nature 2006, 441:792.
21. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 2006, 295:90-93.
22. Ginsparg P. ArXiv at 20. Nature 2011, 476:145-147.
23. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002, 287:2762-2765.
24. Godlee F. Evidence given to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Peer Review 11 May 2001. Transcript of oral evidence, HC856, Q97. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf.
25. Godlee F., Dickersin K. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions. Peer Review in Health Sciences 2003, 91-117. BMJ Books, London. 2nd edn. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds.).
26. Gøtzsche P.C., Delamothe T., Godlee F., Lundh A. Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ 2010, 341:c3926.
27. Gowers T. Is massively collaborative mathematics possible? Gowers's Weblog 27 January 2009, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/.
28. Grant R.P. On peer review. Confessions of a (former) Lab Rat 15 April 2010, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://occamstypewriter.org/rpg/2010/04/15/on_peer_review/.
29. Hames I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice 2007, Blackwell Publishing and ALPSP, Oxford.
30. Howard J. Leading humanities journal debuts 'open' peer review, and likes it. The Chronicle of Higher Education 26 July 2010, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://chronicle.com/article/Leading-Humanities-Journal-/123696/.
31. ICMJE Ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: conflicts of interest Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, (accessed 3 January 2012). http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html.
32. Jaschik S. Rejecting double blind. Inside Higher Ed: Times Higher Education 31 May 2011, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416353.
33. Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wager E., Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002, 287:2784-2786.
34. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000016. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
35. Kronick D.A. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990, 263:1321-1322.
36. Laine C., Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003, 139:1038-1040.
37. Lawrence P.A. The politics of publication. Nature 2003, 422:259-261.
38. Lawrence P.A. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 2007, 17(15):R583-R585.
39. Lock S. Introduction to the third impression. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine 1991, London: BMJ. Originally published 1985, ISI Press, Philadelphia.
40. Mandavilli M. Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature 2011, 469:286-287.
41. Martinson B.C., Anderson M.S., de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005, 435:737-738.
42. McCook A. Is peer review broken?. The Scientist 2006, 20(2):26.
43. Nature Overview: Nature's peer review trial (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html.
44. Nature Nature's peer review debate (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html.
45. Nature Nature Publishing Index 2010 China (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing-index/china/2010/.
46. Neylon C. Peer review: what is it good for? Science in the Open 5 February 2010, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://cameronneylon.net/blog/peer-review-what-is-it-good-for/.
47. Nicholson J.K. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data. Nature 2006, 440:992.
48. Nielsen M. Open science. Michael Nielsen, author blog 7 April 2011, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/open-science-2/.
49. Parker R. Evidence given to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Peer Review, 4 May 2001. Transcript of oral evidence, HC856, Q8. 2011, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf.
50. Petchey O., Fox J. Progress on obtaining journal-level data on the peer review system. PubCreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by 'Privatising' the Reviewer Commons 2011, 18 February 2011. http://www.ipetitions.com/ petition/fix-peer-review/blog/5040 (accessed 4 January 2012).
51. Ploegh H. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature 2011, 472:391.
52. PLoS Article-level metrics, and Article-level metrics information, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.plosone.org/static/almInfo.action.
53. Pöschl U. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: the effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal 2010, 36:40-46.
54. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., Neylon C. altmetrics: a manifesto 26 October 2010 (modified September 2008, 2011), (accessed 4 January 2012). http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
55. Priem J. Has Journal commenting failed? Jason Priem, author blog 7 January 2011, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://jasonpriem.com/2011/01/has-journal-article-commenting-failed/.
56. Pulverer B. A transparent black box EMBO Journal 2010, 29:3891-3892.
57. Redfield R. Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims). RRResearch 4 December 2010, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html.
58. Rohn J. Peer review is no picnic. guardian.co.uk 6 September 2010, (accessed 4January 2012). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/06/peer-review.
59. Rossner M., Yamada K.M. What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. Journal of Cell Biology 2004, 166:11-15.
60. Royal Society Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. RS Policy document 03/11, March 2011 2011.
61. Society Royal Science as a public enterprise (accessed 6 January 2012). http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/.
62. Saper C.B., Maunsell J.H.R. Editorial. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium. Neural Development 2009, 4(10). (http://www.neuraldevelopment.com/content/4/1/10).
63. Schriger D.L., Chehrazi A.C., Merchant R.M., Altman D.G. Use of the internet by print medical journals in 2003 to 2009: a longitudinal observational study. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2011, 57:153-160.
64. Sebastiani P., Solovieff N., Puca A., et al. Genetic signatures of exceptional longevity in humans. Science. Published online 1 2010, (July 2010). 10.1126/science.1190532.
65. About Science Sense Peer Review Survey 2009: Full Report (accessed 6 January 2012). http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_Review_Survey_Final_3.pdf.
66. Quarterly Shakespeare Shakespeare Quarterly Open Review: Shakespeare and New Media (accessed 4 January 2012). http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/ShakespeareQuarterly_NewMedia.
67. Shao J., Shen H. The outflow of academic papers from China: why is it happening and can it be stemmed?. Learned Publishing 2011, 24:95-97.
68. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006, 99:178-182.
69. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Research 2010, 12(Suppl. 4):S13. 10.1186/bcr2742.
70. Smith R. Scrap peer review and beware of 'top journals'. BMJ Group blogs 2010, 22 March 2010. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/03/22/richard-smith-scrap-peer-review-and-beware-of-%E2%80%9Ctop-journals%E2%80%9D/ (accessed 6 January 2012).
71. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology 2002, 20:357-358.
72. Tananbaum G., Holmes L. The evolution of Web-based peer-review systems. Learned Publishing 2008, 21:300-306.
73. Tenopir C., Allard S., Bates B., Levine K.J., King D.W., Birch B., Mays R., Caldwell C. Research publication characteristics and their relative values: a report for the Publishing Research Consortium September 2010. http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCReportTenopiretalJan2011.pdf.
74. UK House of Commons Science, Committee Technology Eighth Report of Session 2010-12 Peer review in scientific publications, HC 856. London: The Stationary Office Limited, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf;http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm.
75. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. JAMA 1998, 280:234-237.
76. Velterop J.J.M. Keeping the minutes of science. Proceedings of the Second Electronic and Visual Information Research (ELVIRA) Conference 1995, 11-17. Aslib, London. M. Collier, K. Arnold (Eds.).
77. Vines T., Rieseberg L., Smith H. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. Nature 2010, 468:1041.
78. Wager E., Jefferson T. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing 2001, 14:257-263.
79. WAME Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Payment vs Other Types of Recognition WAME Listserve Discussion 12 February 2007 to 20 February 2007. http://www.wame.org/resources/wame-listserve-discussion/.
80. WAME The Relationship Between Journal Editors-in-Chief and Owners Policy Statement posted 25 July 2009, (accessed 3 January 2012). http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#independence.
81. WAME Geopolitical intrusion on editorial decisions Policy Statement posted 23 March 2004, (accessed 4 January 2012). http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#geopolitical.
82. Ware M. Online Submission and Peer Review Systems: A review of currently available systems and the experiences of authors, referees, editors and publishers. ALPSP Research Report 2005, http://www.alpsp.org/Ebusiness/ProductCatalog/Product.aspx?ID=40 (accessed 6 January 2012).
83. Ware M. Peer review: recent experience and future directions.New. Review of Information Networking 2011, 16(1):23-53.
84. Ware M., Mabe M. The STM Report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. International Association of Scientific 2009, Technical and Medical Publishers, September 2009.
85. Ware M., Monkman M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community - an international study. Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) Research Report 2008, http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf.
86. Weller A.C. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. ASIST Monograph Series 2001, Information Today, Inc., Medford, NJ.
87. Wets K., Weedon D., Velterop J. Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing 2003, 16:249-258.
88. Wolfe-Simon F., Blum J.S., Kulp T.R., et al. A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 2011, 332:1163-1166.
89. Zimmer C. The discovery of arsenic-based Twitter. How #arseniclife changed science. Slate 2011, 27 May 2011. http://www.slate.com/id/2295724/ (accessed 4 January 2012).
90. Council of Science Editors (CSE, http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/). CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2009 Update. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3331 (accessed 3 January 2012).
91. Elsevier Peer Review resources (accessed 3 January 2012). http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/reviewershome.reviewers.
92. Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. (eds) Peer Review in Health Sciences, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books.
93. Hames I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice Oxford: Blackwell Publishing and ALPSP. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405131594.html.
94. International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE, http://www.ismte.org). Resource Central, a collection of resources, tools, instructions and articles to assist editorial offices in peer-review management processes. http://www.ismte.org/Resource_Central (accessed 3 January 2012).
95. Lock S. A Difficult Balance. Editorial Peer Review in Medicine 1985, ISI Press, Philadelphia.
96. Research Information Network Peer Review: a guide for researchers (accessed 3 January 2012). http://www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide.
97. Wiley-Blackwell, Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher's Perspective. Available at http://www.wiley.com/bw/publicationethics/ (accessed 3 January 2012).