Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Heart Lung and Circulation

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2019, Pages 1148-1153

  Gregory, Ann T ^a   Denniss, A Robert ^a,b,c  

^a Heart Lung and Circulation   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Conflict of Interest; Journalology; Peer Review; Reviewer Bias

Indexed keywords

CAREER; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HEART; HUMAN; LUNG CIRCULATION; PEER REVIEW; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; KNOWLEDGE; PROCEDURES;

HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; PEER REVIEW;

EID: 85067362028     PISSN: 14439506     EISSN: 14442892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2019.05.171     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Gregory, A.T., Denniss, A.R., Heart, Lung and Circulation evolves: a fond farewell to our 25th anniversary year and a warm welcome to new initiatives. Heart Lung Circ 25 (2016), 1145–1147.
2. Gregory, A.T., Denniss, A.R., Making an impact: a new research prize for Heart. Lung Circ 26 (2017), 1233–1236.
3. Denniss, A.R., Gregory, A.T., How to get published: what are journal editors looking for?. Heart Lung Circ 26 (2017), 533–535.
4. Gregory, A.T., Denniss, A.R., An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews – tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ 27 (2018), 893–898.
5. Olson, C.M., Peer review of the biomedical literature. Am J Emerg Med 8 (1990), 356–358.
6. Spier, R., The history of the peer-review process. TRENDS Biotechnol 20 (2002), 357–358.
7. Manchikanti, L., Kaye, A.D., Boswell, M., Hirsch, J.A., Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician 18 (2015), E1–E14.
8. Ziman, J.M., Public knowledge: an essay concerning the social development of science. 1968, Cambridge University Press, London.
9. Lachmann, P., The research integrity initiative: progress report. COPE Rep, 2002, 11.
10. Wechsler, A.S., Fried, P.W., Peer review. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 126 (2003), 1681–1682.
11. Moher, D., Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med, 13, 2015, 274.
12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., PRISMA Group, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), 264–269.
13. Del Mar, C., Hoffmann, T.C., A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med, 13, 2015, 248.
14. Byrne, J.A., Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1, 2016, 12.
15. COPE Council, Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September, 2017 www.publicationethics.org.
16. van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., Evans, S.J., Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, 2010, c5729.
17. Rennie, D., Freedom and responsibility in medical publication. Setting the balance right. JAMA 280 (1998), 300–302.
18. Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?. Sci Eng Ethics 25 (2019), 293–321.
19. Cohen, A., Pattanaik, S., Kumar, P., Bies, R.R., de Boer, A., Ferro, A., et al. Organised crime against the academic peer review system. Br J Clin Pharmacol 81 (2016), 1012–1017.
20. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., Oransky, I., Publishing: the peer review scam. Nature 515:November (7528) (2014), 480–482.
21. Sonnert, G., What makes a good scientist? Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists. Soc Stud Sci 25 (1995), 35–55.
22. Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D., The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Libr Inf Sci Res 32 (2010), 5–12.
23. 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, 14, 2016, 85.
24. Gosden, H., Why not give us the full story? Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. J Engl Acad Purposes 2 (2003), 87–101.
25. Hausmann, L., Schweitzer, B., Middleton, F.A., Schulz, J.B., Reviewer selection biased editorial decisions on manuscripts. J Neurochem(January), 2018, 10.1111/jnc.14313 [Epub ahead of print].
26. Charlier, P., Al-Chaer, E.D., Abdallah, B., Massaad, C., Hervé, C., Peer (and brothers) review? Ethical challenges in author-proposed peer reviews [Letter]. Eur J Intern Med 47 (2018), e24–e25.