‘Scholarly peer reviewing’: The art, its joys and woes

Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

Volumn 59, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 465-470

  Kurdi, Madhuri S ^a  

^a Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences ^*  (India)

Author keywords

Editorial; Journal article; Peer review; Role

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIST; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL STUDENT RELATION; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; TRAINING;

EID: 84939243424     PISSN: 00195049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.162981     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
2. Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”? Vasc Health Risk Manag 2007;3:39-53.
3. Kotur PF. How to write a scientific article for a medical journal? Indian J Anaesth 2002;46:21-5.
4. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 2007;31:145-52.
5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirement for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals; 2008. Available from: http://www.icmje.org. [Last accessed on 2015 Feb 17].
6. Wicherts JM, Kievit RA, Bakker M, Borsboom D. Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:20.
7. Van der Wall EE. Peer review under review: Room for improvement? Neth Heart J 2009;17:187.
8. Daniel K. Einstein versus the physical review. Phys Today 2005;58:43-8.
9. Berkenkotter C. The power and perils of peer review. Rhetor Rev 1995;13:245-8.
10. nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2003. p. 1-13. Available from: http://www.culik.com/1190fall2012/Paper_1_files/rennie.pdf. [Last accessed on 2015 Jul 29].
11. Ware M. Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alterations. Summary Report Commissioned by Publishing Research Consortium, London 2008, from Mark Ware Consulting. Available from: http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/ index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/35-prcsummary-4-ware-final-1/file [Last accessed on 2015 Jul 29].
12. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007;4:e40.
13. Rojewski JW, Domenico DM. The art and politics of peer review. J Career Tech Educ 2004;20:41-54.
14. Annesley TM. Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer – And why these reasons are wrong. Clin Chem 2012;58:677-9.
15. Coelho RJ, LaForge J. Manuscript characteristics affecting reviewers’ decisions for rehabilitation counseling-related journals. J Rehabil 2000;66:4-8.
16. Rees M. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, 2011. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org/. [Last accessed on 2015 Feb 16].
17. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med 2011;42:1-13.
18. Schramm HL Jr, Miranda LE. Responding to peer review and editor’s comments. In: Jennings CA, Lauer TA, Vondracek B, editors. Scientific Communication for Natural Resource Professionals. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society; 2012. p. 135-42. Available from: http://www.web. fisheries.org/proofs/sci. [Last accessed on 2014 Dec 09].
19. nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2003. p. 164-82.
20. Steinman WC, Lebeau DL, Michaels RK. A Survey of Journal Editors Regarding the Review Process for Original Clinical Research. [Abstract]; Third International Peer Review Congress; 1997, 18 September; Prague, the Czech Republic; 1997.
21. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014;12:128.
22. Snodgrass RT. Single versus double-blind reviewing. ACM Trans Database Syst 2007;32: [about 29 p.]. Available from: http:// www.doi.acm.org/10.1145/1206049.1206050. [Last accessed on 2015 Jun 27].
23. Pontille D, Torny D. The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media and Technology; 2014. p. 4. Available from: http://www.adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-pontilletorny. [Last accessed on 2015 Jun 27].
24. Moylan EC, Harold S, O’Neill C, Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2014;15:55.
25. Hymans KC. Letter. Lancet 1996;34:132-3.
26. Kowalczuk M, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Haaiman SL, Moylan EC. 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. F1000 Posters 2013;4:1252. Available from: http://f1000research.com/posters/1094564 [Last accessed on 2015 Jul 29].
27. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51.
28. Peer Review in Scientific Publications. Report. UK: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; 2011. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/……/856.pdf. [Last accessed on 2015 Feb 17].
29. Zellmer WA. Editorial. What editors expect of reviewers. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1977;34:819.
30. Winck JC, Fonseca JA, Azevedo LF, Wedzicha JA. To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol 2011;17:96-103.
31. Yang M, Badger R, Yu Z. A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. J Second Lang Writ 2006;15:179-200.
32. Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83.
33. Seals DR, Tanaka H. Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Adv Physiol Educ 2000;23:52-8.
34. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:310-7.
35. Michaels D. Politicizing peer review: The Scientific perspective. In: Wagner W, Steinzor R, editors. Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research. New York Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 219-38.
36. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: Retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014;349:g4145.
37. Campanario JM, Acedo E. Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007;58:734-43.
38. Arrington P. Some thoughts as changing the review process for academic journals: A personal exploration. Rhetor Rev 1995;13:249-53.
39. Peters D, Ceci S. Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982;5:187-255.
40. Hwang K. The Editor’s Role as a Harriet Shaw Weaver. Arch Plast Surg 2014;41:109-10.
41. Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr 2013;11:274-84.
42. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 2000;123:1964-9.
43. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA 1990;263:1338-40.
44. Shelomi M. Editorial misconduct-definition, cases, and causes. Publications 2014;2:51-60.
45. Bajwa SJ. Unethical practices in anesthetic research and publication: Clinical impact, consequences and preventive measures. Saudi J Anaesth 2013;7:491-2.
46. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673.
47. Harsoor S, Gangadhar S. Fraud in anaesthetic research and publication. Indian J Anaesth 2012;56:1-3.