Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles

Scientometrics

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 15-26

  Nedić, Olgica ^a   Dekanski, Aleksandar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

Author keywords

Criteria; Reviewer background; Scientific review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961700536     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1869-6     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aleksic, J., Alexa, A., Attwood, T. K., Chue Hong, N., Dahlö, M., Davey, R., et al. (2014). An open science peer review oath. F1000Research,3, 271. doi:10.12688/f1000research.5686.2.
2. Ashfold, M., & Appleyard, S. (2004). Standards for the quality and originality of articles in PCCP? A notice to authors and referees. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics,6(15), E9. doi:10.1039/b409821h.
3. Azar, O. H. (2005). The review process in economics: Is it too fast? Southern Economic Journal,72(2), 482–491. doi:10.2307/20062123.
4. Bailey, C. D., Hermanson, D. R., & Louwers, T. J. (2008). An examination of the peer review process in accounting journals. Journal of Accounting Education,26(2), 55–72. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2008.04.001.
5. Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., et al. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education,31(2), 145–152. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006.
6. Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., et al. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 56. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=22174702
7. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics,77(3), 415–432. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.
8. Bosch, X., Hernández, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marušić, A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS One,7(12), e51928. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051928.
9. Clark, R. K. F. (2012). Peer review: A view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer. British Dental Journal,213(4), 153–154. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.721.
10. Day, T. E. (2015). The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review. Research Policy,44(6), 1266–1270. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.006.
11. DeMaria, A. N. (2008). Looking back. Journal of the American College of Cardiology,52(25), 2211–2212. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.001.
12. Ernst, E., & Resch, K. L. (1994). Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 124(2), 178–182. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8051481
13. Fein, C. (2013). Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE. Libri,63(4), 259–271. doi:10.1515/libri-2013-0021.
14. García Puig, J., Gaspar Alonso-Vega, G., & Ríos Blanco, J. J. (2012). Report of the editors, 2011. Revista Clínica Española,212(1), 31–39. doi:10.1016/j.rce.2011.11.004.
15. Ghosh, S. S., Klein, A., Avants, B., & Millman, K. J. (2012). Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience,6, 18. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00018.
16. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association,280(3), 237–240. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.237.
17. Golden, M., & Schultz, D. M. (2012). Quantifying the volunteer effort of scientific peer reviewing. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,93(3), 337–345. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00129.1.
18. Guraya, S. Y. (2014). Accuracy of references in scholarly journals: An analysis of 450 references in ten biomedical journals. European Science Editing, 40(4), 88–90. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84920670315&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
19. Hesman Saey, T. (2015). Is redoing scientific research the best way to find truth? Science News187(2), January 13. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/redoing-scientific-research-best-way-find-truth
20. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature,520(7548), 429–431. doi:10.1038/520429a.
21. Ho, R. C.-M., Mak, K.-K., Tao, R., Lu, Y., Day, J. R., & Pan, F. (2013). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology,13, 74. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-74.
22. Hoffmann, R. (2008). A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics,40(9), 1047–1051. doi:10.1038/ng.f.217.
23. Holden, C. (2005). Stem cell research. Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations. Science,310(5753), 1402–1403. doi:10.1126/science.310.5753.1402.
24. Houry, D., Green, S., & Callaham, M. (2012). Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education,12, 83. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-83.
25. Kachewar, S. G., & Sankaye, S. B. (2013). Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monographs,11(1), 274–284. doi:10.4103/0973-1229.109347.
26. Kearney, M. H., Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., Dougherty, M. C., & Freda, M. C. (2008). Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,40(4), 395–400. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x.
27. Kelty, C. M., Burrus, S., & Baranuik, R. G. (2008). Peer review anew: Three principles and a case study in publication quality assurance. Proceedings of the IEEE,96(6), 1000–1011. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2008.921613.
28. Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association,263(10), 1321–1322. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002.
29. Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine,10(1), 124. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-124.
30. Marchionini, G. (2008). Editorial: Reviewer merits and review control in an age of electronic manuscript management system. ACM Transactions on Information Systems,26(4), 25. doi:10.1145/1402256.1402264.
31. Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? Accounting, Organizations and Society,34(2), 285–304. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.003.
32. Moos, D. D., & Hawkins, P. (2009). Barriers and strategies to the revision process from an editor’s perspective. Nursing Forum,44(2), 79–92. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.2009.00131.x.
33. Nedić, O., & Dekanski, A. (2015). A survey on the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society publishing policies—On the occasion of the 80th volume. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society,80(7), 959–969. doi:10.2298/JSC150306036N.
34. Oosterhaven, J. (2015). Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance. Scientometrics,103(1), 261–265. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1527-4.
35. Reuters, T. (2015). IP & Science. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/
36. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2014). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(2), 360–365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112.
37. Souder, L. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing,24(1), 55–74. doi:10.1087/20110109.
38. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy,42(1), 287–294. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014.
39. Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine,12, 179. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
40. Steinhauser, G., Adlassnig, W., Risch, J. A., Anderlini, S., Arguriou, P., Armendariz, A. Z., et al. (2012). Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics,33(5), 359–376. doi:10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1.
41. Vintzileos, A. M., Ananth, C. V., Odibo, A. O., Chauhan, S. P., Smulian, J. C., & Oyelese, Y. (2014). The relationship between a reviewer’s recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,211(6), 703.e1–e5.
42. Yalow, R. S. (1977). Radioimmunoassay: A probe for fine structure of biologic systems. Nobel Lecture. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1977/yalow-lecture.pdf