The missing metric: Quantifying contributions of reviewers

Royal Society Open Science

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

  Cantor, Maurício ^a   Gero, Shane ^b  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Index; Peer review; Publication practices; Research assessment; Science metrics; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941973182     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20545703     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.140540     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Hochberg ME, Chase JM, Gotelli NJ, Hastings A, Naeem S. 2009 The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecol. Lett. 12, 2-4. (doi: 10. 1111/j. 1461-0248. 2008. 01276. x).
2. Robertson P. 1976 Towards open refereeing. New Sci. 71, 19.
3. Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. 2013 Reviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr. 11, 274-284. (doi: 10. 4103/0973-1229. 109347).
4. Godlee F. 2002 Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 287, 2762-2765. (doi: 10. 1001/jama. 287. 21. 2762).
5. Nature Neuroscience 2005 Revolutionizing peer review? Nat. Neurosci. 8, 397.
6. Duffy DC. 2013 Reviewing reviewers: science needs a standard way to evaluate and reward journal reviewers. The Scientist. See http: //www. thescientist. com/?articles. view/articleNo/36575/ title/Opinion-Reviewing-Reviewers/.
7. Lortie CJ. 2011 Money for nothing and your referees for free. Ideas Ecol. Evol. 4, 43-47. (doi: 10. 4033/iee. 2011. 4. 9. e).
8. Fox J, Petchey OL. 2010 Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by 'privatizing' the reviewer commons. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 91, 325-333. (doi: 10. 1890/0012-9623-91. 3. 325).
9. Koonin EV. 2003 Swift publication would reward good reviewers. Nature 422, 374. (doi: 10. 1038/422374c).
10. Hauser M, Fehr E. 2007 An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biol. 5, e107. (doi: 10. 1371/journal. pbio. 0050107).
11. Likert R. 1932 A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1-55.
12. Peerage of Science 2013 Professors and postdocs in peer review. Peerage Sci. See http: //www. peerageofscience. org/profs-vs-postdocs.
13. Bohannon J. 2013Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342, 60-65. (doi: 10. 1126/science. 342. 6154. 60).
14. Bartholomew RE. 2014 Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 107, 384-385. (doi: 10. 1177/0141076814548526).
15. Beall J. 2012 Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489, 179. (doi: 10. 1038/489179a).
16. Paoletti E. 2009 A reviewer factor (RF) for finding and retaining good reviewers. Elsevier's Ed. Updat. 28, 5-6.
17. Cintas P. 2010 Increasing visibility and recognition of reviewers: is a peer review index a possible solution? Elsevier Rev. Updat. 28, 6-7.
18. Lawrence PA. 2003 The politics of publication. Nature 422, 259-261. (doi: 10. 1038/422259a).
19. Abbott A, Cyranoski D, Jones N, Maher B, Schiermeier Q, Van Noorden R. 2010Metrics: do metrics matter? Nature 465, 860-862. (doi: 10. 1038/465860a).
20. Hirsch JE. 2005 An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 16 569-16 572. (doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0507655102).
21. Veríssimo D, Roberts DL. 2013 The academic welfare state: making peer-review count. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 623-624. (doi: 10. 1016/j. tree. 2013. 07. 003).
22. Petchey OL, Fox JW, Haddon L. 2014 Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010. PLoS ONE 9, e92896. (doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0092896).
23. Seglen PO. 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314, 497. (doi: 10. 1136/bmj. 314. 7079. 497).
24. Bordons M, Fernández MT, Gomez I. 2002 Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics 53, 195-206. (doi: 10. 1023/A: 1014800407876).
25. PLoS Medicine Editors 2006 The impact factor game. PLoS Med. 3, e291. (doi: 10. 1371/journal. pmed. 0030291).
26. Lozano GA, Larivière V, Gingras Y. 2012 The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 2140-2145. (doi: 10. 1002/asi. 22731).
27. Wicherts JM, Kievit RA, Bakker M, Borsboom D. 2012 Letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6, 1-9. (doi: 10. 3389/ fncom. 2012. 00020).
28. Walther A, Van den Bosch JJF. 2012 FOSE: a framework for open science evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6, 1-8. (doi: 10. 3389/fncom. 2012. 00032).
29. Aarssen L, Lortie C. 2012 Science open reviewed: an online community connecting authors with reviewers for journals. Ideas Ecol. Evol. 5, 78-83. (doi: 10. 4033/iee. 2012. 5b. 16. f).
30. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. 2009 H-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J. Informetr. 3, 273-289. (doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2009. 04. 001).
31. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. 2006 The H index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 167-170. (doi: 10. 1016/j. tree. 2006. 01. 005).
32. Moed HF. 2010 Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. J. Informetr. 4, 265-277. (doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2010. 01. 002).
33. Grainger DW. 2007 Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials 28, 5199-5203. (doi: 10. 1016/j. biomaterials. 2007. 07. 004).