Rewarding peer reviewers - maintaining the integrity of science communication

Journal of Korean Medical Science

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 360-364

  Gasparyan, Armen Yuri ^a   Gerasimov, Alexey N ^b   Voronov, Alexander A ^c   Kitas, George D ^a,d  

^a RUSSELLS HALL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b STAVROPOL STATE AGRARIAN UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^c KUBAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Open access; Peer review; Periodicals as topic; Publication ethics; Rewards; Science communication

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL FEE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REWARD; SCIENCE;

COMMUNICATION; FEE-FOR-SERVICE PLANS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; REWARD; SCIENCE;

EID: 84951811041     PISSN: 10118934     EISSN: 15986357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006; 99: 178-82.
2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, DavidoffF. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007: Mr000016.
3. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J 2011; 52: 423-8.
4. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53: 386-9.
5. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J 2013; 54: 600-8.
6. Smith R. Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity. J R Soc Med 2006; 99: 292-7.
7. Barroga EF. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review. J Korean Med Sci 2014; 29: 1450-2.
8. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 2014; 515: 480-2.
9. Thombs BD, Levis AW, Razykov I, Syamchandra A, Leentjens AF, Levenson JL, Lumley MA. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res 2015; 78: 1-6.
10. 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.
11. Gasparyan AY, Akazhanov NA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. J Korean Med Sci 2014; 29: 1453-6.
12. Bastian H. A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLoS Med 2014; 11: e1001772.
13. Brand RA. Reviewing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 2622-5.
14. Graur D. Peer review: Payback time for referee refusal. Nature 2014; 505: 483.
15. Newton M. More on peer review: quality control for a costly product. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2008; 15: 439-42.
16. Gosling S. Elsevier reviewer badges and rewards scheme, 2015. Available at http://www.peerreviewfuture.com/?page_id=242 [accessed on 16 January 2015].
17. Kramer MS. Researchers, authors and reviewers: what are our responsibilities? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2012; 26: 308-9.
18. Diamandis EP. Publishing costs: Peer review as a business transaction. Nature 2015; 517: 145.
19. Van Noorden R. Company offers portable peer review. Nature 2013; 494: 161.
20. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 9-12.
21. Bernstein J. Free for service: the inadequate incentives for quality peer review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3093-4; discussion 4-7.
22. Munk PL, Murphy KJ, Nicolaou S, Klass D. Why should I review journal manuscripts? Can Assoc Radiol J 2014; 65: 193.
23. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med 2014; 12: 179.
24. Sohail S. Fortifying the external peer review: an editorial perspective. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015; 25: 2-3.
25. Fuster V. A praise for reviewers: how do we reward them? J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 212-3.
26. De Gregory J. Medical journals start granting CME credit for peer review. Sci Editor 2004; 27: 190-1.
27. van Dijk U. Certificate of excellence in reviewing, 2013. Available at http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/peer-review/certificate-of-peer-reviewing-excellence [accessed on 16 January 2015].
28. Clark RK. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer. Br Dent J 2012; 213: 153-4.
29. Van Noorden R. The scientists who get credit for peer review, 2014. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/the-scientists-who-get-credit-for-peer-review-1.16102 [accessed on 16 January 2015].
30. Chimes C. News roundup: publons data in altmetric details pages, 2013. Available at http://www.altmetric.com/blog/publons/[accessed on 16 January 2015].
31. Review rewards. Nature 2014; 514: 274.
32. Florian RV. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Front Comput Neurosci 2012; 6: 31.
33. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Chimia (Aarau) 2010; 64: 72-7.
34. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2007; 2: e332.
35. Fokin AA. Reviewing a reviewer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 35: 383-4.
36. Carrell DT, Rajpert-De Meyts E. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike. Andrology 2013; 1: 531-2.