Decisions, decisions: Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences. Funders are also getting involved

eLife

Volumn 6, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Rodgers, Peter ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

CAPITAL FINANCING; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING;

EID: 85032896255     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.32011     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Button KS, Bal L, Clark A, Shipley T. 2016. Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review. BMC Psychology 4:59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7, PMID: 27903302
2. Chambers C. 2017. Registered Reports: Peer reviewed study pre-registration. Implications for Reporting of Human Clinical Trials. https://www.federa.org/sites/default/files/images/federa-chambers.pdf [Accessed September 23, 2017].
3. Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. 2017. ’Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLOS Biology 15:e2002173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173, PMID: 28892482
4. Flier JS. 2016. It’s time to overhaul the secretive peer review process. STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/05/peer-review-process-science/ [Accessed September 23, 2017].
5. King S. 2017. Consultative review is worth the wait. eLife 6:e32012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32012
6. Munafó MR. 2017. Improving the efficiency of grant and journal peer review: registered reports funding. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 19:773. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx081, PMID: 28387844
7. Pöschl U. 2012. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6:33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033, PMID: 22783183
8. Ross-Hellauer T. 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 6:588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
9. Smith R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99:178-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178, PMID: 16574968
10. Tennant J. 2017. A multidisciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review: [version 1; referees 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 6:1151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1