Traditional peer review and post-publication peer review

Perfusion (United Kingdom)

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 443-444

  Luo, L ^a   Rubens, F D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EDITORIAL; ERROR; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; POST PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 84984865000     PISSN: 02676591     EISSN: 1477111X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0267659116667265     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Balsam LB, Reyentovich A, Son AY, DeAnda AJ,. Management of the in situ HeartMate II left ventricular assist device during non-transplant, non-exchange cardiac reoperations. Perfusion 2016; 31: 465-470.
2. Faggion CMJ,. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. Br Dent J 2016; 220: 167-168.
3. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA,. Reproducibility: a tragedy of errors. Nature 2016; 530: 27-29.
4. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobranszki J,. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Account Res 2015; 22: 22-40.
5. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P,. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci 2015; 9: 169.
6. Getting closer to a fully correctable and connected research literature. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001408.
7. Hunter J,. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci 2012; 6: 63.