A quantitative analysis of peer review

Proceedings of ISSI 2011 - 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics

Volumn 2, Issue , 2011, Pages 724-736

  Ragone, Azzurra ^a   Mirylenka, Katsiaryna ^a   Casati, Fabio ^a   Marchese, Maurizio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORKS; LOW CORRELATION; PEER REVIEW; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; QUANTITATIVE METRICS; REVIEW PROCESS;

EID: 85083494681     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Bornmann L., Daniel H.-D. Committee peer review at an international research foundation: predictive validity and fairness of selection decisions on post-graduate fellowship applications. Research Evaluation, 14(1):15-20, 2005a.
2. Bornmann L., Daniel H.-D. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review: reliability, fairness and predictive validity of board of trustees' decisions. Scientometrics, 63(2):297-320, 2005b.
3. Bornmann L., Daniel H.-D. The validity of staff editors initial evaluations of manuscripts: a case study of Angewandte Chemie international edition. Scientometrics 85(3), 681-687, 2010.
4. Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., Ledin, A. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two european molecular biology organization programmes. PLoS ONE, 3, 2008.
5. Casati F., Marchese M., Mirylenka K., Ragone A. Reviewing peer review: a quantitative analysis of peer review. Technical Report 1813, University of Trento, Num.1813 - April 2010
6. Ceci S.J., Peters D.P. Peer review: A study of reliability. Change, 14(6): 44-48, 1982.
7. Godlee F., Gale C.R., Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280(3):237-240, 1998.
8. Goodman S.N., Berlin J., Fletcher S.W., Fletcher R.H. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121(1):11-21, 1994.
9. Jefferson T., P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA, 287(21):2784-2786, 2002a.
10. Jefferson T., Wager E., Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA, 287(21):2786-2790, 2002b.
11. Kassirer J.P., Campion E.W. Peer review: Crude and understudied, but indispensable. Journal of American Medical Association, 272(2):96-97, 1994.
12. Kendall M.G. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1-2):81-93, 1938.
13. Krapivin M., Marchese M., Casati F. Exploring and understanding citation-based scientific metrics. In J. Zhou, editor, First International Conference Complex 2009, pages 1550-1563, Shanghai, China, February 23-25, 2009.
14. Lawrence P.A. The politics of publication. Nature, 422(6929):259-261, 2003.
15. Link A.M. Us and non-us submissions an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 280(3):246-7. 1998.
16. Reinhart M. Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics, 81(3):789-809, 2009.
17. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. JRSM, 99(4):178, 2006.
18. Spier, R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol., 20:357-358, 2002.
19. Welch B. L. The generalization of 'student's' problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1/2):28-35, 1947.
20. Wenneras C., Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387:341-343, 1997.