Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||The peer review process is the dominant system adopted in science to evaluate the quality of articles submitted for publication. Various social players are involved in this process, including authors, editors and reviewers. Much has been discussed about the need to improve the scientific quality of what is published. The main focus of these discussions has been the work of the authors. However, the editors and reviewers also fulfill an important role. In this opinion article, we discuss some proposals to improve the peer review system, emphasizing the role of reviewers and editors.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little (2011). Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Leigh Turner (2003). Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher (1997). Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
Arthur Stamps (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1997). Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada (2008). Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
J. Scott Armstrong (1997). Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Jo Ann Carland, James W. Carland & Carroll D. Aby (1992). Proposed Codification of Ethicacy in the Publication Process. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):95 - 104.
Carole J. Lee (2012). A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review. Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
Helene Marsh & Carole M. Eros (1999). Ethics of Field Research: Do Journals Set the Standard? Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):375-382.
Thomas Erren, Michael Erren & David Shaw (2013). Peer Reviewers Can Meet Journals’ Criteria for Authorship. British Medical Journal 346:f166.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Ronald N. Kostoff (1997). The Principles and Practices of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-05-10
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?