Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system
Graduate studies at Western
Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62 (1997)
|Abstract||The documented low levels of reliability of the peer review process present a serious challenge to editors who must often base their publication decisions on conflicting referee recommendations. The purpose of this article is to discuss this process and examine ways to produce a more reliable and useful peer review system.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1).
Malcolm Atkinson (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2).
J. Scott Armstrong (1997). Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan (2001). Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice? Theory and Decision 51 (1):1-11.
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.
Ronald N. Kostoff (1997). The Principles and Practices of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
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.
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.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,521 of 739,851 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,851 )
How can I increase my downloads?