David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84 (1997)
This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, structured rating sheets, open peer review, results-blind review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish it.
|Keywords||blind reviews early acceptance electronic publishing innovation post-publication peer review results-blind reviews|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Arthur Stamps Iii (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Dr Malcolm Atkinson (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Arthur Stamps (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Similar books and articles
Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam, Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Michael Nentwich (2004). Quality Control in Academic Publishing: Challenges in the Age of Cyberscience. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (3):181-198.
Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher (1997). Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
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.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
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.
Raymond Spier (2002). Peer Review and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #135,392 of 1,099,024 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #80,012 of 1,099,024 )
How can I increase my downloads?