‘Peer review’ for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies

Medical Journal Armed Forces India

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 172-174

  Das, A K ^a  

^a ARMED FORCES MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

Author keywords

Emerging issues; Peer review; Scientific manuscripts

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA BASE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; E-MAIL; EDITOR; ERROR; FRAUD; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RECOGNITION; RELIABILITY;

EID: 84983399360     PISSN: 03771237     EISSN: 22134743     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:169. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169.
2. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e68397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.
3. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature. 2014;515(November (7528)):480-482.
4. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud-hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(25):2393-2395.
5. Levis AW, Leentjens AF, Levenson JL, Lumley MA, Thombs BD. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review. J Psychosom Res. 2015;79(6):561-565.
6. Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: ‘‘all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’’? Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3(1):39-53.
7. Moustafa K. A proposal for an ‘equal peer-review’ statement. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2015;36(8):494-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2015.06.001.
8. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
9. Haynes R, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA. 2006;295(15):1801-1808.
10. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014;12:128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z.
11. Overview: nature’s peer review trial. Nature. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05535.
12. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/.
13. https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/peer-review/recognizing-your-top-reviewers.