Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):809-812 (2015)

Abstract
The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings. Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers
Keywords Review strategy  Scientific journals  Biased review  Peer review process  Impact factor
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 44,327
External links

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

Peer Review and Innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
'Peer Review' Culture.Dr Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
‘Peer Review’ Culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Peer Review and Innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-04-30

Total views
12 ( #655,527 of 2,271,463 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #829,300 of 2,271,463 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature