Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Document Type
Article
Citation
Alam, S., & Patel, J. (2015). Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers. BMC Medicine, 13, 269. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0512-3
Ali, P. A., & Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open, 3(4), 193–202. doi:10.1002/nop2.51
Almquist, M., von Allmen, R. S., Carradice, D., Oosterling, S. J., McFarlane, K., & Wijnhoven, B. (2017). A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science. Plos One, 12(6), e0179031. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179031
Armstrong, J.S (1982). Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Authors Formula. Behav Brain Sci. Cambridge University Press (CUP). 5(02):197-199.
Ballantyne, K. N., Edmond, G., & Found, B. (2017). Peer review in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 277, 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.05.020
Barroga, E. F. (2014). Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining “rational cheating” in peer review. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 29(11), 1450–1452. doi:10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450
Blockeel, C., Drakopoulos, P., Polyzos, N. P., Tournaye, H., & García-Velasco, J. A. (2017). Review the “peer review”. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.017
Boldt, A. (2011). Extending ArXiv.Org to Achieve Open Peer Review and Publishing. J Scholarly Publ. University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress), 42(2):238-42.
Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, Day R, Ferraz M. B,
Hawkey C. J, Hochberg M. C, Kvien T. K and Schnitzer T. J (2000), VIGOR Study Group: Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000, 343: 1520-1528,. 10.1056/NEJM200011233432103.
Bornmann L, Herich H, Joos H, et al. (2012). In Public Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts
How Do Reviewer Comments Differ from Comments Written by Interested Members of the Scientific Community? A Content Analysis of Comments Written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Scientometrics. Springer Nature; 93(3):915–29. 10.1007/s11192-012-0731-8.
Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10), 176. doi:10.5688/ajpe7810176
Budden, A.E, Tregenza, T, Aarsen, et al., (2008). Double-Blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors. Trends Ecol Evol., 23(1): 4-6.
Danka, E. S., & Malpede, B. M. (2015). Reading, Writing, and Presenting Original Scientific Research: A Nine-Week Course in Scientific Communication for High School Students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(2), 203–210. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.925
Day, C (2015). Meet the Overlay Journal. Phys Today. AIP Publishing.
De Castro Fonseca, M., Aguiar, C. J., da Rocha Franco, J. A., Gingold, R. N., & Leite, M. F. (2016). GPR91: expanding the frontiers of Krebs cycle intermediates. Cell Communication and Signaling, 14, 3. doi:10.1186/s12964-016-0126-1
DeVoss, C. C (2017). Artificial intelligence applications in scientific publishing. In SpotOnReport. pp4-7.
Driggers, R. (2015). Peer Review Week: editorial. Applied Optics, 54(31), ED13. doi:10.1364/AO.54.00ED13
Ferreira, C., Bastille-Rousseau, G., Bennett, A. M., Ellington, E. H., Terwissen, C., Austin, C., Murray, D. L. (2016). The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 91(3), 597–610. doi:10.1111/brv.12185
Ford, E. (2015). Defining and characterizing OPR: A review of literature. J. Scholarly Publ. 44(4).
311-326.
Ford, E. (2015). Open Peer Review At Four Stem Journals: An Observational Overview. [Version
2; Referees: 2 Approved, 2 Approved With Reservations]. F1000research, 4:6. Doi:10.12688/F1000research.6005.2.
Geithner, C. A., & Pollastro, A. N. (2016). Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 38–46. doi:10.1152/advan.00071.2015
Gennaro, S. (2015). Peer review: we can’t do without you. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47(6), 485–486. doi:10.1111/jnu.12172
Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM and Vaggi F. The effects of an editor serving as one of
the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2016, 5:683 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8452.2).
Green, B. N., & Chief, E. I. (2017). Peer reviewer acknowledgments. The Journal of Chiropractic Education. doi:10.7899/JCE-17-10
Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(1-4), 167–175.
Hanson, N., & Schlich, T. (2015). Highly qualified loser"? Harvey Cushing and the Nobel Prize. Journal of Neurosurgery, 122(4), 976–979. doi:10.3171/2014.11.JNS14990
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife, 6. doi:10.7554/eLife.21718
Herron, D. M. (2012). Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surgical Endoscopy, 26(8), 2275–2280. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1
Hopewell, S., Collins, G. S., Boutron, I., Yu, L.-M., Cook, J., Shanyinde, M., … Altman, D. G. (2014). Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 349, g4145. doi:10.1136/bmj.g4145
Horrobin, D. F (1990). The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation.
JAMA. 1990;263(10):1438-1441. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024. Accessed at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/380984.
Janowicz K. and Hitzler, P. (2012). Open and Transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web Journal. Learn Publ. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012; 25(1):48-55.
Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2786–2790. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
Kalantar Motamedi, M. H. (2013). Don’T you just hate peer review? Trauma Monthly, 18(1), 1–2. doi:10.5812/traumamon.10396
Knoepfler, P. (2015). Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics, 31(5), 221–223. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006
Kratz, J.E and Strasser, C (2015). Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of Data. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0117619.doi:101371/journal.pone.0117619.
Kreiman, J. (2016). On Peer Review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 480–483. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0043
Kurdi, M. S. (2015). Scholarly peer reviewing ’: The art, its joys and woes. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 59(8), 465–470. doi:10.4103/0019-5049.162981
Le Bailly, B. (2016). Learning from peer review. Nature Nanotechnology, 11(2), 204. doi:10.1038/nnano.2016.4
Li, D., & Agha, L. (2015). Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science, 348(6233), 434–438. doi:10.1126/science.aaa0185.
Monsen, E.R, Van Hom, L (2007). Research: Successful Approaches. American Dietetic Assocoation.
Mulligan, A, Hall, L, Raphael, E (2013). Peer Review in a Changing World: An International Study Measuring the Attitudes of Researchers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. Wiley-Blackwell. 64(1):132-61.
Nicholson, J, Alperin, J.P (2016). A Brief Survey on Peer Review in Scholarly Communication. The Winnower.
O’Dowd, A. (2014). Journals’ peer review system sometimes overlooks important research. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 349, g7797. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7797
Park, I.-U., Peacey, M. W., & Munafò, M. R. (2014). Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature, 506(7486), 93–96. doi:10.1038/nature12786
Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M, et al., (2010). Natural Selection of Academic Papers. Scientometrics. Springers Nature, 85(2): 553-59.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 33. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033
Rochon, P. A., Bero, L. A., Bay, A. M., Gold, J. L., Dergal, J. M., Binns, M. A., … Gurwitz, J. H. (2002). Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2853–2856. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2853
Ross J.S, Gross, C.P, Desai, MM. et al., (2006). Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance. JAMA. American Medical Association (AMA). 295(14):1675-80.
Sandewall, E (2012). Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review. Front Compt Neurosci. Frontiers Media SA. 6:9.
Saeidnia, S., & Abdollahi, M. (2015). Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals. Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 23, 21. doi:10.1186/s40199-015-0099-4
Shriki, J. E., & Bhargava, P. (2015). Peer review: strengthening the weak link of academic radiology. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 44(3), 227–228. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.02.007
Smith, J., & Milnes, L. (2016). Responding to, and learning from, peer review feedback. Nursing Children and Young People, 28(9), 18. doi:10.7748/ncyp.28.9.18.s20
Spier, R. E. (2002). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(1), 99–108; discussion 109.
Steinhauser, G., Adlassnig, W., Risch, J. A., Anderlini, S., Arguriou, P., Armendariz, A. Z., … Barnett, J. (2012). Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33(5), 359–376. doi:10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1
Strickland, N. H. (2015). Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback. Clinical Radiology, 70(11), 1158–1164. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.091
Suber, P (2012). Open Access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 22–40. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
Tony Ross-Hellauer (2017). What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review. F1000research
(Doi:6 10.12688/F1000research.11369.1).
Treganza, T (2002). Gender Bias in Refereeing Process? Trends Ecol. 17(8):349-50.
Twaij, H., Oussedik, S., & Hoffmeyer, P. (2014). Peer review. The Bone & Joint Journal, 96-B(4), 436–441. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33041
van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans S.J (2010). Effect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers That
Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial. BMJ; 341:c5729–c5729. 10.1136/bmj.c5729.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. (1999). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that
their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ;318(7175):23–27. 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
Vinther, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2013). [Peer review is not based on evidence, but on tradition and good intentions]. Ugeskrift for Laeger, 175(1-2), 45–48.
Wagner, P. D., & Bates, J. H. T. (2016). Maintaining the integrity of peer review. Journal of Applied Physiology, 120(5), 479–480. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00067.2016
Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon
AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA (1998): Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998, 351: 637-641. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.
Walker R, Rocha da Silva P (2015). Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front
Neurosci.Frontiers Media SA; 9:169. 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169.
Wang, W., Kong, X., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Xia, F., & Wang, X. (2016). Editorial behaviors in peer review. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 903. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2601-y
Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. Plos One, 11(1), e0147913. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
Wierzbinski-Cross, H. (2017). Peer Review. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 33(2), 102–104. doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000327
Woodall, J., South, J., Dixey, R., de Viggiani, N., & Penson, W. (2015). Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 11(2), 87–97. doi:10.1108/IJPH-10-2014-0039
Yaffe, M. B. (2009). Re-reviewing peer review. Science Signaling, 2(85), eg11. doi:10.1126/scisignal.285eg11
Yarris, L. M., Gottlieb, M., Scott, K., Sampson, C., Rose, E., Chan, T. M., & Ilgen, J. (2017). Academic primer series: key papers about peer review. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(4), 721–728. doi:10.5811/westjem.2017.2.33430
Abstract
Peer review truly, is the king in scientific communication –however, traditional peer review has been accused of many irregularities such as inconsistency and unrealistic peer reviewing, methodology flaws, and the likes. Despite all these irregularities, scholars still believe in peer review but new ways of opening up peer reviews are encouraged. There were high levels of backing for most of the attributes of OPR, such as disclosing identities of reviewers, open reports, open interaction, open platform, commenting on the final-version of published articles or data. Furthermore, the idea of supplementing pre-publication peer review with some form of post-publication evaluation would improve scientific communication. Also, novel initiatives for OPR are reviewed and how they can speed up peer review in today scholarship. In conclusion, ways of making OPR not just a new science but a sound and reliable scientific exercise were elaborated. The purpose of this study is to review OPR literature and discuss the novel and sharp practices of OPR in today’s scholarship