Peer review: The current landscape and future trends

Learned Publishing

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 13-21

  Jubb, Michael ^a  

^a Research Information Network   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001955773     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/leap.1008     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Acharya, A., Verstak, A., Suzuki, H., Henderson, S., Iakhiaev, M., Lin, C. C. Y., & Shetty, N. (2014, 8 October). Rise of the rest: The growing impact of nonelite journals [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://googlescholar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/rise-of-rest-growing-impact-of-non.html
2. Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a
3. Curry, S. (2015, 7 September). Peer review, preprints and the speed of science. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprintsspeed-science-journals
4. Davis, P. (2014, 20 October). Growing impact of non-elite journals [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/10/20/growing-impact-of-non-elite-journals/
5. Dyer, O. (2014). Researcher who had job offer withdrawn sues anonymous commentator for defamation. The BMJ, 349. doi:10.1136/bmj.g6840
6. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42). doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109
7. Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLOS Biology, 13(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
8. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011). Peer review in scientific publications (HC 856).
9. Jefferson T., JRudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of biomedical studies. The Cochrane Library, art no MR000016 p3. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
10. Jubb, M. (2015). Scholarly communication and peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Retrieved from the Welcome Trust website: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/©policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp059003.pdf
11. Jump, P. (2015a, 15 February). Copy that. Times Higher Education 2, 219, 3–9.
12. Jump, P. (2015b, 3 September). Reproducing results: how big is the problem? [Web log post]. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/reproducing-results-how-big-is-theproblem
13. Look, H., & Sparks, S. (2010). The value of UK HEIs’ contribution to the publishing process: summary report. Retrieved from JISC Collections website: https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Global/report%20on%20HEIs%20non-cash%20contribution%20to%20the%20journal%20publishing%20process%20final.pdf
14. Manchikanti, L., Kaye, A. D., Boswell, M., & Hirsch, J. A. (2015). Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician, 18(1), E1–E14.
15. Mobley, A., Linder, S. K., Braeuer, R., & Ellis, L. M. (2013). A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLOS ONE, 8(5e63221). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063221
16. Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2012). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1. doi:10.1002/asi.22798
17. Mulligan, A. (2013). The peer review landscape: What do researchers think. Paper presented to ALPSP seminar on the Future of Peer Review.
18. Nature (2014, 5 November). Journals unite for reproducibility. Nature, 515. doi:10.1038/515007a
19. Nature (2015, 18 February). Nature journals offer double-blind review. Nature, 518. doi:10.1038/518274b
20. Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1105–1107.
21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2014). The culture of scientific research in the UK. Retrieved from http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Nuffield_research_culture_full_report_web.pdf
22. Oransky, I. (2015, 13 October). Elsevier retracting nine papers for fake peer review [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/13/elsevier-retracting-nine-papers-for-fake-peer-review/
23. Peer J (2014, 21 October). Who’s afraid of open peer review [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://peerj.com/blog/post/100580518238/whos-afraidof-open-peer-review/
24. Popper, K. (1992). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge 66.
25. Research Information Network (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Activites-costs-flowsreport.pdf
26. Royal Society (2015). The future of scholarly scientific communication [Conference programme]. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/events/2015/04/FSSC1/FSSC-Report.pdf
27. Sense About Science (2009). Peer ReviewSurvey 2009: Full Report. Retrieved from http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_Review_Survey_Final_3.pdf
28. Siler, K., Leeb, K., & Beroc, L. (2015).Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112
29. Van Rooyen, S. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trial. The BMJ, 318, 23.
30. Velterop, J. (2014, 8 October). Journals of Nature and Science [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/journalsof-nature-and-science.html
31. Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prcresearch-projects/35-prc-summary-4-ware-final-1/file
32. Ware, M. (2013). Peer review, an introduction and guide. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-guides-1/47-prc-peer-review-guide-final-2013-07-22/file