Peer review: From recognition to improved practices

FEMS Microbiology Letters

Volumn 363, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 1-4

  Cintas, Pedro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXTREMADURA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Improved practices; Misconduct issues; Peer review; Peer review indexes; Post publication review; Scientific integrity

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; MEDICAL ERROR; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOTE; PEER REVIEW; POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; ETHICS; HUMAN;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84973151892     PISSN: 03781097     EISSN: 15746968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fnw115     Document Type: Note

References (31)

1. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ et al. A tragedy of errors. Nature 2016;530:27-9.
2. Anon. Referees' quotes-2010. Environ Microbiol 2010;12:3303-4.
3. Anon. Referees' quotes-2010. Microb Biotechnol 2011;4:108.
4. Anon. The power of disagreement. Nat Methods 2016;13:185.
5. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1323-9.
6. Casadevall A, Fang FC. Impact is not importance. mBio 2015;6:e01593-15.
7. Cintas P. Increasing visibility and recognition of reviewers. Els Editors' Update 2009;28:6-7.
8. Cintas P, Paoletti E. Metrics: include refereeing as part of performance rating. Nature 2010;466:179.
9. Contakes SM. Misconduct at the lab? A performance task case study for teaching data analysis and critical thinking. J Chem Educ 2016;93:314-7.
10. Fang FC, Casadevall A, Morrison RP. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 2011;79:3855-9.
11. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publicateions. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:17028-33.
12. Hames I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
13. House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee, Peer Review in Scientific Publications, 8th Report of Session 2010-2012. London, UK: The Stationery Office Ltd, 2011.
14. Ke Q, Ferrara E, Radicchi F et al. Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:7426-31.
15. Kevles DJ. The assault on David Baltimore. The New Yorker. New York, NY: Condé Nast, 1996, 94-109.
16. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1321-2.
17. Le Bailly B. Learning from peer review. Nat Nanotechnol 2016;11:204.
18. Lundstrom K, Baker W. To give is better than to receive: the benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. J Second Lang Writ 2009;18:30-43.
19. Marcus A, Oransky I.What studies of retraction tell us. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2014;15:151-4.
20. Paoletti E. A reviewer factor (RF) for finding and retaining good reviewers. Els Editors' Update 2009;28:5-6.
21. Park IU, Peacey MW,Munafò MR. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 2014;506:93-6.
22. Reich ES. Plastic Fantastic. How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
23. Rousseau R. After the journal impact factor and the web impact factor a referee factor enters the fray: some comments. ISSI Newsletter. International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2006;2:2-3.
24. Scher S.WasWatson and Crick's model truly self-evident. Nature 2004;427:584.
25. Silver S. Beyond the fringe: when sciencemoves from innovative to nonsense. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2014;350:2-8.
26. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002;20:357-8.
27. Verissimo D, Roberts DL. The academic welfare state: making peer-review count. Trends Ecol Evol 2013;28:623-4.
28. Wicherts JM. Peer review quality and transparency of the peerreview process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One 2016;11:e0147913.
29. Wilson R. Referee factor would reward a vital contribution. Nature 2006;441:812.
30. Wilson R, Lancaster J. Correction to Referee factor would reward a vital contribution. Nature 2006;441:1048.
31. Zare RN. Better practices in scientific publishing. Angew Chem Int Edit 2016;55:2606-7.