Reviewer overload and what can we do about it

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 78, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 961-962

  Merrill, Evelyn ^a   Cox, Allison ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904994050     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: 19372817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.763     Document Type: Editorial

References (18)

1. Baveye, P. C., L. Charlet, K. P. Georgakakos, and, G. Syme,. 2009. Ensuring that reviewers' time and effort are used efficiently. Journal of Hydrology 365: 1-3.
2. Brennan, L. A., 2012. Editorial guidance and wildlife science: the roles of Wildlife Society Bulletin authors, associate editors and reviewers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36: 392-398.
3. Callaham, M. L., and, J. Tercier,. 2007. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine 4: 32-40.
4. Diederich, F., 2013. Are we refereeing ourselves to death? The peer-review system at its limit. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition 52: 13828-13829.
5. Donaldson, M. R., C. T. Hasler, K. C. Hanson, T. D. Clark, S. G. Hinch, and, S. J. Cooke,. 2010. Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: a case study of ecology journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 3: 1-7.
6. Hauser, M., and, E. Fehr,. 2007. An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology 5 (4): e107.
7. Hochberg, M. E., 2010. Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 3: 8-10.
8. Houry, D., S. Green, and, M. Callaham,. 2012. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education 12: 83.
9. Ketcham, C. M., R. W. Hardy, B. P. Rubin, and, G. P. Siegal,. 2013. Finding a new generation of spies and manuscript reviewers. Laboratory Investigation 93: 1262-1264.
10. Lajtha, K., and, P. C. Baveye,. 2010. How should we deal with the growing peer-review problem ? Biogeochemistry 101: 1-3.
11. Lyman, R. E., 2013. A three-decade history of the duration of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44: 211-220.
12. Merrill, E., 2014. What's in a title ? Journal of Wildlife Management 78: 761-762.
13. Petchey, O. L., J. W. Fox, and, L. Haddon,. 2014. Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010. PloS ONE 9 (3): e92896.
14. Siegel, D., and, P. Baveye,. 2010. Battling the paper glut. Science 329: 1466-1466.
15. Squazzoni, F., G. Bravo, and, K. Takacs,. 2013. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy 42: 287-294.
16. Tite, L., and, S. Schroter,. 2007. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61: 9-12. (Pubitemid 46114584)
17. Verissimo, D., and, D. L. Roberts,. 2013. The academic welfare state: making peer-review count. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28: 623-624.
18. White, G. C., 2014. More than 50 shades of gray: the uneven quality of peer review in open-access publishing. Wildlife Professional 8: 18-23.