Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals

Issues in Mental Health Nursing

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 99-101

  Thomas, Sandra P ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85042086805     PISSN: 01612840     EISSN: 10964673     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01612840.2018.1431443     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. Adler, A. C., & Stayer, S. A., (2017). Bias among peer reviewers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 318(8), 755. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.9186
2. Bauchner, H., & Fontanarosa, P., (2017). In reply [to Adler and Strayer]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 318(8), 755–756. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.9201
3. Bero, L., (2017). Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 317(17), 1723–1724. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3854
4. COPE Council. (2017, September). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved from www.publicationethics.org.
5. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I., (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(27), 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a
6. Freedland, K. E., (2017). Health psychology's new (old) peer-review policy. Health Psychology, 36, 189–191. doi:10.1037/hea0000486
7. Grimm, D., (2005). Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science, 309, 1974. doi:10.1126/science.309.5743.1974
8. Henly, S. J., & Dougherty, M. C., (2009). Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nursing Outlook, 57, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006
9. Kearney, M. H., (2016). Rigorous peer review is worth the effort. Research in Nursing and Health, 39, 393–395. doi:10.1002/nur.21771
10. Kearney, M. H., Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., Dougherty, M. C., & Freda, M. C., (2008). Nurse editors’ views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing and Health, 28, 442–452.
11. Meadows, A., (2017, August 3). What does transparent peer review mean and why is it important? The Scholarly Kitchen, [blog of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.]
12. Preston, A., (2017, August 9). The future of peer review. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/ the-future-of-peer-review/
13. Shattell, M. M., Chinn, P., Thomas, S. P., & Cowling, W. R., (2010). Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42, 58–65. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x
14. Thomas, S. P., (2011). Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly journals. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27, 168–173. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.015