The state of the art in peer review

FEMS Microbiology Letters

Volumn 365, Issue 19, 2018, Pages

  Tennant, Jonathan P ^a  

^a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Peer review; Publishing; Scholarly communication; Social networks; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CERTIFICATION; ECOSYSTEM; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL NETWORK; FORECASTING; HUMAN; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

FORECASTING; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION;

EID: 85055886790     PISSN: 03781097     EISSN: 15746968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fny204     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Allen H, Boxer E, Cury A et al. What does better peer review look like? Definitions, essential areas, and recommendations for better practice. Open Science Framework 2018. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4mfk2.
2. BaldwinM. Credibility, Peer Review, and Nature, 1945-1990. Notes Rec. 2015;69:337-52.
3. Bastian H. The Fractured Logic of Blinded Peer Review in Journals. 2017. http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/10/31/the-fractured-logic-of-blinded-peer-review-in-journals/.
4. Bedeian AG. The manuscript review process. J Manag Inquiry 2003;12:331-8.
5. Birgit Schmidt, Edit Gorogh. New toolkits on the block: Peer review alternatives in scholarly communication, Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing. 2017; page 62.
6. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on angewandte chemie international edition. Chimia (Aarau) 2010;64:72-77.
7. Brembs B. Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Front Hum Neurosci 2018;12:37.
8. Brembs B, Button K, Munafò M. Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:291.
9. Breuning M, Backstrom J, Brannon J et al. Reviewer fatigue?Why scholars decline to review their peers' work. PS: Political Science & Politics 2015;48:595-600.
10. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: A systematic review and meta-Analysis." BMC Med 2016;14:85.
11. Choi JP. Herd behavior, the 'Penguin Effect', and the suppression of informational diffusion: An analysis of informational externalities and payoff interdependency. 1994-62. Discussion Paper. Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research. 1994 https://ideas.repec.org/p/tiu/tiucen/d6bac82e-f8fe-4a91-98ec-c8b46a785cc2.html.
12. Copiello S. On the money value of peer review. Scientometrics 2018;115:613-20.
13. Csiszar A. Peer Review: Troubled from the start. Nature 2016;532:306-8.
14. D'Andrea R, James P, O'Dwyer JP. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0186111.
15. Epstein D, Wiseman V, Salaria N et al. The need for speed: The peer-Review process and what are we doing about It? Health Policy Plan 2017;32:1345-6.
16. Flier J. It's Time to Overhaul the Secretive Peer Review Process. 2016. https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/05/peer-review-processscience/.
17. Florian RV. Aggregating Post-Publication peer reviews and ratings. Fron Comput Neurosci 2012;6:31.
18. Fox CW, Albert AYK, Vines TH. Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: A test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Res Integr Peer Rev 2017;2:3.
19. Fox J, Petchey OL. Pubcreds: Fixing the peer review process by "Privatizing" the reviewer commons. Bull Ecol Soc Am 2010;91:325-33.
20. Fyfe A, Coate K, Curry S et al. Untangling academic publishing. A history of the relationship between commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of research. 2017.
21. Ginsparg P. Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO J 2016;35:2620-5.
22. Goodman SN. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:11.
23. Grimaldo F, Marušić A, Squazzoni F. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015). PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0193148.
24. Gropp RE, Glisson S, Gallo S et al. Peer Review: A System under Stress. BioScience 2017;67:407-10.
25. Hartgerink CHJ, van Zelst M. "As-You-Go" Instead of "After-the-Fact": A Network approach to scholarly communication and evaluation. Publications 2018;6:21.
26. Heller L, Bartling S. Dynamic publication formats and collaborative authoring. In Opening Science, 191-211. Springer, Cham. 2014.
27. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A et al. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. ELife 2017;6:e21718.
28. Iezzoni LI. Explicit disability bias in peer review. Medical Care 2018;56:277.
29. J ?onasson JT. Educational change, inertia and potential futures. Eur J Futures Res 2016;4:7.
30. Jubb M. Peer Review: The Current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing 2016;29:13-21.
31. Jutta H, Fredrik A. Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon's 'Sting' in science. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2016;68:450-67.
32. KovanisM, Trinquart L, Ravaud P et al. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: A large-scale agent-basedmodelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics 2017;113:651-71.
33. Kriegeskorte N. Open evaluation: A Vision for entirely transparent Post-Publication peer review and rating for science. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:79.
34. Kronick DA. Peer Review in 18th-Century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263:1321-22.
35. Kuehn BM. Peer Review: Rooting out Bias. ELife 2017;6: e32014.
36. Lee CJ, Moher D. Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data. Science 2017;357:256-7.
37. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang Guo et al. Bias in Peer Review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2013;64:2-17.
38. Lin J. Peer Reviews Are Open for Registering at Crossref 2017. www.org/blog/peer-reviews-are-open-for-registering-at-/.
39. Lyman RL A Three-Decade history of the duration of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2013;211-20. doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44.3.001.
40. Marra M. Astrophysicists and physicists as creators of ArXiv-Based commenting resources for their research communities. An Initial Survey. ISU 2017;37:371-87.
41. Mayden KD. Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard. J Adv Pract Oncol 2012;3:117-22.
42. Melinda B. What It Was like to Be Peer Reviewed in the 1860s. Physics Today 2017. doi.org/10.1063/PT.5.9098.
43. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: Consensus Statement. BMC Med 2017;15:167.
44. Moore S, Neylon C, Eve MP et al. 'Excellence R Us': University research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Commun 2017;3:16105.
45. Morey RD, Chambers CD, Etchells PJ et al. The peer reviewers' Openness Initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer Review. R Soc open sci 2016;3:150547.
46. Moxham N, Fyfe A. The royal society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665-1965. Hist J 2017;1-27. doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334.
47. Niccolò C, Francisco G, Nigel G et al. Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017;68:1763-71.
48. Nicholas D,Watkinson A, Hamid R et al. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learn Pub 2015;28:15-21.
49. Nwagwu WE, Onyancha B. Back to the beginning - The Journal is dead, long live science. J Acad Libr 2015;41:669-79.
50. Papelis YE, Petty MD. Recognizing the contributions of reviewers in publishing and peer review. SIMULATION 2018;94:277-8.
51. Parks S, Gunashekar S. Tracking Global Trends in Open Peer Review 2017. www.rand.org/blog/2017/10/tracking-globaltrends-in-open-peer-review.html.
52. Pierson CA. Peer review and journal quality. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 2018;30:1-2.
53. Pontille D, Torny D. From Manuscript evaluation to article valuation: The changing technologies of journal peer review. Hum Stud 2015;38:57-79.
54. Pöschl U. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and Self-Regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal 2010;36:40-46.
55. Pöschl U. Multi-Stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and Self-Regulation. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:33. doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.
56. Pöschl U, Koop T. Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. ISU 2008;28:105-7.
57. Prechelt L, Graziotin D, Fernandez DM. A Community's perspective on the status and future of peer review in software Engineering. Inf Softw Technol2018;95:75-85.
58. Priem J, Hemminger BM. Decoupling the Scholarly Journal. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:19. doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00019.
59. Pulverer B. Preparing for Preprints. EMBO J 2016;35:2617-2619; e201670030. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201670030.
60. Rajagopalan J. Axios Review announces closure, will no longer accept documents for peer review. Editage Insights(23-03-2017) 2017. www.editage.com/insights/news/axios-review-announces-closure-will-no-longer-acceptdocuments-for-peer-review/1490281992.
61. Rennie D. Let's make peer review Scientific. Nature 2016;535:31-33.
62. Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of interest in journal peer review. Toxicol Pathol 2018;46:112-4.
63. Ross-Hellauer T.What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res 2017a;6:588. https://peerj.com/preprints/26954.
64. Ross-Hellauer T. Open Peer Review: Bringing Transparency, Accountability, and Inclusivity to the Peer Review Process. 2017b. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/13/open-peer-review-bringing-transparencyaccountability-and-inclusivity-to-the-peer-review-process/.
65. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0189311.
66. Ross-Hellauer T, Schmidt B, Kramer B. Are funder open access platforms a good idea? PeerJ Inc 2018;e26954v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1.
67. Schmidt B, Gorogh E.Newtoolkits on the block: Peer reviewalternatives in scholarlycommunication. In Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing. IOS Press, 62
68. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328: 673.
69. Sizo A, Lino A, Rocha Á. Assessing review reports of scientific articles: A literature review. In Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer, Cham. 2018;142-49. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77703-014.
70. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
71. Spezi V, Wakeling S, Pinfield S et al. 'Let the Community Decide'? The vision and reality of Soundness-Only peer review in open-Access Mega-Journals. Journal of Documentation 2018;74:137-61.
72. Spier R. The History of the Peer-Review Process. Trends Biotechnol 2002;20:357-8.
73. Squazzoni F, Brezis E, Marušić A. Scientometrics of peer review. Scientometrics 2017;113:501-2.
74. Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marušić A. Publishing: journals could share peer-review data. Nature 2017;546:352. doi.org/10.1038/546352a.
75. Tennant JP. The dark side of peer review. EON. 2017;10:2-4.
76. Tennant JP, Bauin S, James S et al. The evolving preprint landscape: Introductory report for the knowledge exchange working group on preprints. BITSS 2018. doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/796TU.
77. Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. AMulti-Disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res 2017;6:1151.
78. Thomas SP. current controversies regarding peer review in scholarly journals. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2018;39:99-101.
79. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Reviewer bias in Singleversus Double-Blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2017;114:12708-13.
80. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Stephen J et al. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341: c5729.
81. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-27.
82. Vines T, Rieseberg L, Smith H. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. Comments and Opinion Nature. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1038/4681041a.
83. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review-a Survey. Front Neurosci 2015;9: 169. doi.org/10.3389/fnins. 2015.00169.
84. Ware M. Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking 2011;16:23-53.
85. Ware M. Peer Review Survey 2015: Key Findings. 2015. http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/134-news-main-menu/prc-peer-review-survey-2015-keyfindings/172-peer-review-survey-2015-key-findings.
86. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. 2015.
87. Wellen R. Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs. SAGE Open 2013;3:2158244013507271.
88. Zuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System. Minerva 1971;9:66-100.