Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century

Science Editing

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 4-8

  Hames, Irene ^a  

^a York   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Editor; Editorial decisions; Ethics; Peer review; Scholarly publishing

Indexed keywords

EID: 85021446901     PISSN: 22888063     EISSN: 22887474     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Ware M, Monkman M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community: an international study [Internet]. Cambridge: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://publishingresearch.net/index.php?view=download&alias= 8-peer-review-full-prc-report&option=com_docman& Itemid=815
2. Sense about Science. Peer review survey 2009: full report [Internet]. London: Sense about Science; 2009 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_Review_Survey_Final_3.pdf
3. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013;64:132-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
4. Taylor & Francis Group. Open Access Survey: exploring the views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge authors [Internet]. London: Taylor & Francis; 2013 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/open-access-survey-march2013.pdf
5. Hames I. Peer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape. In: Cambell R, Pentz E, Borthwick I, editors. Academic and professional publishing. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing; 2012. p. 15-52
6. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing [Internet]. Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2012 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf
7. Rubriq Blog. How we found 15 million hours of lost time [Internet]. Durham: Rubriq Blog; 2013 [cited 2013 Jul 18]. Available from: http://blog.rubriq.com/2013/06/03/how-we-found-15-million-hours-of-lost-time/
8. Beall J. Beall's list: potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers [Internet]. [place unknown]: Scholarly Open Access; 2012 [cited 2013 May 16]. Available from: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
9. Marcus A, Oransky I. Bring on the transparency index [Internet]. Midland, ON: The Scientist; 2012 [cited 2013 May 16]. Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/ ?articles.view/articleNo/32427/title/Bring-On-the-Transparency-Index/
10. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82
11. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12(Suppl 4):S13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742
12. Hames I. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2007
13. Ploegh H. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature 2011;472:391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ 472391a
14. Bishop D. In defence of peer review: response to Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12(Suppl 4):S13 [Internet]. Breast Cancer Research; 2011 [cited 2013 Nov 5]. Available from: http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/12/S4/S13/comments#455683
15. Committee on Publication Ethics. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors [Internet]. [place unknown]: Committee on Publication Ethics; 2011 [cited 2013 Jun 4]. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_0.pdf
16. Oransky I. Retraction count grows to 35 for scientist who faked emails to do his own peer review [Internet]. [place unknown]: Retraction Watch; 2012 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ 2012/09/17/retraction-count-for-scientist-who-faked-emails-to-do-his-own-peer-review-grows-to-35/#more-9761
17. Hames I; Committee on Publication Ethics. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers [Internet]. [place unknown]: Committee on Publication Ethics; 2013 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf
18. Hames I. COPE's new ethical guidelines for peer reviewers: background, issues, and evolution [Internet]. Mantua, NJ: International Society of Managing and Technical Editors; 2013 [cited 2013 May 17]. Available from: http://www.ismte.org/Shared_Articles-COPEs_new_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Peer_Reviewers_background_issues_and_evolution
19. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. Peer review in scientific publications: eighth report of session 2010-12 [Internet]. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2011 [cited 2013 May 18]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf; www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm
20. Hames I. The changing face of peer review. In: Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A, editors. Science editors' handbook. 2nd ed. Cornwall: European Association of Science Editors; 2013. p. 149-51