Emerging new methods of peer review in scholarly journals

Learned Publishing

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 85-91

  Björk, Bo Christer ^a   Hedlund, Turid ^a  

^a HANKEN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929493867     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20150202     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. APA 2013. Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2013. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa. org/pubs/journals/features/2013-statistics.pdf (accessed 19 February 2015)
2. Beall, J. 2013. Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing, 26: 79–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20130203
3. Binfield, P. 2013. Open Access Megajournals-Have They Changed Everything? Keynote lecture, Open UBC Week, University of British Columbia, 22 October 2013, http://oaweek.open. ubc. ca/2013/09/03/open-accessmega journals/
4. Björk, B.-C., Solomon, D. 2013. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7: 914–923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001
5. Bohannon, J. 2013., Who’s afraid of peer review. Science Magazine, 342(6154): 60–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
6. Bornmann L. 2011. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1): 197–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
7. Clarke, M. 2013. Game of Papers: eLife, BMC, PLoS and EMBO Announce New Peer Review Consortium, The Scholarly Kitchen blog, 15 July 2013, http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/15/game-ofpapers-elife-bmc-plos-and-embo-announce-new-peerreview-consortium/
8. Grainger, D. 2007. Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28: 5199–5203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. biomaterials.2007.07.004
9. Kronick, D. 1990. Peer review in the 18th century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1321–1322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002
10. Lee, C., Sugimoto, C., Zhang, G., and Cronin, B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64: 2–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
11. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H.R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Allard, S., and Levine, K. 2015. Peer review: still king in the digital age/Learned Publishing, 28: 15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20150104
12. Peters, P. 2011. The ISRN Series from Hindawi. Conference presentation, COASP conference, Tallinn, Estonia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBs0hfh232M
13. Solomon, D. 2014. A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.365
14. Spier, R. 2002. The history of peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20: 357–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
15. Souder, L. 2011. The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24: 55–72.
16. Sugimoto, C., Larivière, V., Ni, C., and Cronin, B. 2013. Journal acceptance rates: a cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. Journal of Informetrics, 7: 897–906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007