The current peer review system is unsustainable-awaken the paid reviewer force!

Clinical Biochemistry

Volumn 50, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 461-463

  Diamandis, Eleftherios P ^a,b,c  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

Academic publishing; Changing the peer review system; Paid reviewers; Peer review; Scientific reviewing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; WORK; PUBLICATION;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85013934983     PISSN: 00099120     EISSN: 18732933     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.02.019     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Black, M.H., Diamandis, E.P., The diagnostic and prognostic utility of prostate-specific antigen for diseases of the breast. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 59 (2000), 1–14.
2. Rennie, D., Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA 256 (1986), 2391–2392.
3. Diamandis, E.P., More discussion on journal impact factor. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 51, 2013, 2271.
4. Diamandis, E.P., Journal impact factor: it will go away soon. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 47 (2009), 1317–1318.
5. Calne, R., Preprint servers: vet reproducibility of biology preprints. Nature, 535, 2016, 493.
6. Diamandis, E.P., Publishing costs: peer review as a business transaction. Nature, 517, 2015, 145.
7. Ioannidis, J.P., Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med., 2, 2005, e124.
8. Diamandis, E.P., Quality of the scientific literature: all that glitters is not gold. Clin. Biochem. 39 (2006), 1109–1111.