Peer review incentives: A simple idea to encourage fast and effective peer review

European Science Editing

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 70-71

  Johnston, Daniel ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84951965044     PISSN: 02583127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (6)

1. 1 Hopewell S, Collins G, Boutron I, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014;348:g4145.
2. 2 Fountain H. Science Journal Pulls 60 Papers in Peer-Review Fraud. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html (accessed 10 June 2015).
3. 3 Jump P. Slay peer review 'sacred cow', says former BMJ chief. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/slay-peer-review-sacred-cow-says-former-bmj-chief/2019812.article (accessed 10 June 2015).
4. 4 Nature Publishing Group. Author Insights 2014. figshare. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1204999 (accessed 10 June 2015).
5. 5 Elisabeth M. Bik Publons reviewer profile. Available at: https://publons.com/author/250457/elisabeth-m-bik (accessed 10 June 2015).
6. 6 Roberts S. [@sr320]. (2014, September 19). "It was a little easier spending AM on manuscript review knowing even if comments are ignored - I still get some credit, thanks @Publons!… I also believe I am much more constructive and spend more time explaining issues and offering solutions…". Available at: https://twitter.com/sr320/status/513052347409235968 and https://twitter.com/sr320/status/513051648076169217 (accessed 10 June 2015).