Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  D’Andrea, Rafael ^a   O’Dwyer, James P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; ETHICS; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

COMMUNICATION; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 85030981961     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186111     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium. 2008; p. 20.
2. Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E. Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (Cochrane Methodology Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
3. Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marusic A. Journals could share peer-review data. Nature. 2017; 546:352. https://doi.org/10.1038/546352a PMID: 28617464
4. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1977; 1(2):161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
5. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain. 2000; 123 (Pt 9):1964–1969. PMID: 10960059
6. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002; 287(21):2784–2786. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2784 PMID: 12038911
7. Myers DJ. The Peer-Review System Is Broken. Chronicle of Higher Education. 2009; 56(2):B4.
8. Fox J, Petchey OL. Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 2010; 91(3):325–333. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-962391.3.325
9. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 PMID: 27832157
10. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013; 64(1):2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
11. Henneken EA, Kurtz MJ, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A, Grant C, Thompson D, et al. Effect of E-printing on Citation Rates in Astronomy and Physics. Journal of Electronic Publishing. 2006; 9(2):11. https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.202
12. Editorial. Double-blind peer review. Nature. 2015; 11(APRIL):2015.
13. Groves T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ. 2010; 341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj. c6424
14. Kriegeskorte N. Open evaluation: A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 2012; 6(October):1–18.
15. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017; 6(0):588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1 PMID: 28580134
16. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999; 318(7175):23–27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23 PMID: 9872878
17. Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010; 341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425
18. Ware M. Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking. 2011; 16(1):23–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812
19. Csiszar A. Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016; 532(7599):306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a PMID: 27111616
20. Tennant JP, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Dugan JM, Mietchen D, Elkhatib Y, et al. An interdisciplinary perspective on innovations in peer review. F1000Research. 2017; p. 1–52.
21. Roebber PJ, Schultz DM. Peer review, program officers and science funding. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6(4):2–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018680
22. Cabotà J, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F. Do editors have a silver bullet? An agent-based model of peer review. Proceedings 28th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation ECMS 2014. 2014; p. 725–731.
23. Thorngate W, Chowdhury W. By the Numbers: Track Record, Flawed Reviews, Journal Space, and the Fate of Talented Authors. In: Kaminsky B, Koloch G, editors. Advances in Social Simulation. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. vol. 229. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 177–188. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-39829-2.
24. Bianchi F, Squazzoni F. Is three better than one? Simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review. Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) IEEE, 2015. 2015; p. 779–790.
25. Wang W, Kong X, Zhang J, Chen Z, Xia F, Wang X. Editorial behaviors in peer review. SpringerPlus. 2016; 5(1):903. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2601-y PMID: 27386349
26. Thurner S, Hanel R. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average. European Physical Journal B. 2011; 84(4):707–711. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2011-20545-7
27. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C. Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure. Journal of Informetrics. 2012; 6(2):265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.005
28. Grimaldo F, Paolucci M. A Simulation of Disagreement for Control of Rational Cheating in Peer Review. Advances in Complex Systems. 2013; 16(07):1350004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525913500045
29. Paolucci M, Grimaldo F. Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: From junk support to elitism. Scientometrics. 2014; 99(3):663–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1 PMID: 24829514
30. Allesina S. Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution. 2012; 5 (2):27–35. https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2012.5b.8.f
31. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C. Opening the Black-Box of Peer Review: An Agent-Based Model of Scientist Behaviour. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 2013; 16(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2128
32. Hauser M, Fehr E. An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology. 2007; 5(4):703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107
33. Aktipis CA, Thompson-Schill SL. Positive assortment for peer review. Adaptive Behavior. 2010; 18 (5):448–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712310384281
34. Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Porcher R. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017; p. 1–21.
35. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013; 64(1):132–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798