Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

PLoS ONE

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2018, Pages

  Grimaldo, Francisco ^a   Marušić, Ana ^b   Squazzoni, Flaminio ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REST; REVIEW; SCOPUS; ANIMAL; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; DATA MINING; DOCUMENTATION; HISTORY; PROCEDURES;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; ANIMALS; DATA MINING; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW;

EID: 85042260246     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193148     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Squazzoni F, Takács K. Social simulation that ‘peers into peer review’. J Artif Soc Soc Simul. 2011; 14 (4): 3.
2. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2011; 45 (1): 197–245.
3. Bowman JD. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm EducV. 2014; 78(10): 176.
4. David N, Watkinson A, Jamali HR, Hermand E, Tenopir C, Volantine R, et al. Peer review: still king in the digital era. Learned Publishing. 2015; 28(1): 1–21.
5. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review—A survey. Front Neurosci, 2015; 9: 169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169 PMID: 26074753
6. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 2013; 342: 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60 PMID: 24092725
7. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, 2013; 64(1): 2–17.
8. Couzin-Frankel J. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study. Science, 2013; 341 (6142): 1331.
9. The Economist. Unreliable research. Trouble at the lab. 18 Oct 2013. https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble. Cited 28 Sept 2017.
10. Mali?ki M, von Elm E, Maruši? A. Study design, publication outcome, and funding of research presented at international congresses on peer review and biomedical publication. JAMA. 2014; 311(10): 1065–1067. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.143 PMID: 24618970
11. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. JRSM. 2006; 99(4): 178–182.
12. Birukou A, Wakeling JR, Bartolini C, Casati F, Marchese M, Mirylenka K, et al. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2011; 5: 56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056 PMID: 22174702
13. Gould THP. Do we still need peer review? An argument for change. Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press. 2013.
14. Spier R. The history of the peer review process. TRENDS in Biotechnology. 2002; 20(8): 357–358. PMID: 12127284
15. Csiszar A. Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016; 532(7599): 306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a PMID: 27111616
16. Lamont M. How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2009.
17. Cowley S. How peer review constraints cognition: On the frontline in the knowledge sector. Front Psy-chol 2015; 6: 1706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01706 PMID: 26579064
18. Batagelj V, Ferligoj A, Squazzoni F. The emergence of a field: A network analysis of research on peer review. Scientometrics 2017; 113(1): 503–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2522-8 PMID: 29056788
19. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1): 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 PMID: 27287500
20. Lee CJ, Moher D. Scientific Publishing. Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data. Science 2017; 357(6348): 257–257.
21. Drummond R. Let’s make peer review scientific. Nature. 2016. 535(7610), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/535031a PMID: 27383970
22. Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marusic A. Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data, Nature, 2017; 546(7658): 352.
23. Newman MEJ. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS. 2004; 101(Sup-plement 1): 5200–5205.
24. Börner K, Maru J, Goldstone R. The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. PNAS. 2004; 101: 5266–5273. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307625100 PMID: 14976254
25. Börner K, Glänzel W, Scharnhorst A, Van den Besselaar PV. Modeling science: studying the structure and dynamics of science. Scientometrics. 2011; 89(1): 347–348.
26. Jonas H, Lorscheid I, Meyer M. Recent development of Social Simulation as reflected in JASSS between 2008 and 2014: A Citation and Co-Citation Analysis. J Artif Soc Soc Simul. 2017; 20(1)
27. Sun X, Kaur J, Milojevi? S, Flammini A, Menczer F. Social dynamics in science. Nature Scientific Reports. 2013; 3(1): 1069.
28. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press; 1994.