cbmpub9944026 in
  • RSS

Works Cited

  • Albanese, Mark. “Three Blind Mice—­Might Make Good Reviewers.” Medical Education 40.9 (2006): 828–­30. Print.
  • Altman, D. G. “The Scandal of Poor Medical Research.” BMJ 308 (1994): 283–­84. Print.
  • “Author Insights 2014.” Nature Publishing Group, 2014. Web.
  • Basken, Paul. “Open-­Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper from Bogus Center.” Chronicle of Higher Education 10 June 2009. Web.
  • Begg, C., et al. “Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement.” JAMA 276.8 (1996): 637–­39. Print.
  • Biagioli, Mario. “From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review.” Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures 12.1 (2002): 11–­45. Web.
  • Björk, Bo-­Christer. “Have the ‘Mega-­Journals’ Reached the Limits to Growth?” PeerJ 3 (2015): n.p. Web.
  • Björk, Bo-­Christer, and Turid Hedlund. “Emerging New Methods of Peer Review in Scholarly Journals.” Learned Publishing 28.2 (2015): 85–­91. Print.
  • Blatt, Michael R. “Vigilante Science.” Plant Physiology 169.2 (2015): 907–­9. Print.
  • Bohannon, John. “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?” Science 342.6154 (2013): 60–­65. Print.
  • Brown, Richard J. C. “Double Anonymity in Peer Review within the Chemistry Periodicals Community.” Learned Publishing 20.2 (2007): 131–­37. Print.
  • Burnham, John C. “The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review.” JAMA 263.10 (1990): 1323. Web.
  • Butler, Declan. “Investigating Journals: The Dark Side of Publishing.” Nature 27 Mar. 2013. Web.
  • Chan, An-­Wen, and Douglas G. Altman. “Epidemiology and Reporting of Randomised Trials Published in PubMed Journals.” Lancet 365.9465 (2005): 1159–­62. Web.
  • Cho, M. K., et al. “Masking Author Identity in Peer Review.” JAMA 280.3 (1998): 243.
  • Cobey, K. D., et al. “Report on a Pilot Project to Introduce a Publications Officer.” CMAJ 188 (2016): E279–­E280. Print.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics. “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.” 7 Mar. 2011. Web.
  • Curry, Stephen. “Peer Review, Preprints and the Speed of Science.” Guardian 7 Sept. 2015. Web.
  • Decoursey, Thomas. “The Pros and Cons of Open Peer Review.” Nature (2006). Web. doi:10.1038/nature04991.
  • Dougherty, Molly C. “Open Peer Review.” Nursing Research 53.4 (2004): 213. Print.
  • Ellison, Glenn. “Is Peer Review in Decline?” Economic Inquiry 49.3 (2010): 635–­57. Web.
  • Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. “Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy.” ADE Bulletin (2010): 41–­54. Web.
  • Franco, A., N. Malhotra, and G. Simonovits. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science 345.6203 (2014): 1502–­5. Print.
  • Fyfe, Aileen. “Peer Review: Not as Old as You Might Think.” Times Higher Education 24 June 2015. Web.
  • García-­Berthou, Emili, and Carles Alcaraz. “Incongruence between Test Statistics and P Values in Medical Papers.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 4.1 (2004): 13. Web.
  • Godlee, Fiona, Catharine R. Gale, and Christopher N. Martyn. “Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports.” JAMA 280.3 (1998): 237. Web.
  • “Go Forth and Replicate!” Nature 536.373 (25 Aug. 2016). Web. <http://​www​.nature​.com/​news/​go​-forth​-and​-replicate​-1​.20473>.
  • Goldbeck-­Wood, S. “Evidence on Peer Review: Scientific Quality Control or Smokescreen?” BMJ 318.7175 (1999): 44–­45. Web.
  • Groves, T. “Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? Yes.” BMJ 341.c6424 (2010). Web. <http://​www​.bmj​.com/​content/​341/​bmj​.c6424>.
  • Hames, Irene. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. Print.
  • Hopewell, S., et al. “Impact of Peer Review on Reports of Randomised Trials Published in Open Peer Review Journals: Retrospective before and after Study.” BMJ 349 (2014): 4145. Print.
  • Ioannidis, John. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2.8 (2005): n.p. Web.
  • Jefferson, Tom, et al. “Editorial Peer-­Review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies.” Reviews Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews no. 2. (2001): n.p. Web. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
  • ———. “Effects of Editorial Peer Review.” JAMA 287.21 (2002): 2784. Web.
  • Johnston, Daniel. “Peer Review Incentives: A Simple Idea to Encourage Fast and Effective Peer Review.” European Science Editing 41.3 (2015): 70–­71. Print.
  • Jump, Paul. “Slay Peer Review ‘Sacred Cow,’ Says Former BMJ Chief.” Times Higher Education 21 Apr. 2015. Web.
  • Justice, A. C., M. K. Cho, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, D. Rennie, and the PEER Investigators. “Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?” JAMA 280.3 (1998): 24. Print.
  • Kennefick, Daniel. “Einstein versus the Physical Review.” Physics Today 58.9 (2005): 43–­48. Web.
  • Khan, K. “Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? No.” BMJ 341.c6425 (2010). Web. <http://​www​.bmj​.com/​content/​341/​bmj​.c6425>.
  • Kronick, David A. “Peer Review in 18th-­Century Scientific Journalism.” JAMA 263.10 (1990): 1321. Web.
  • Lee, Carole J., et al. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64.1 (2012): 2–­17. Web.
  • Lu, Yanping. “Peer Review and Its Contribution to Manuscript Quality: An Australian Perspective.” Learned Publishing 21.4 (2008): 307–­18. Web.
  • Macleod, Malcolm R., et al. “Biomedical Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste.” Lancet 383.9912 (2014): 101–­4. Web.
  • McNutt, R. A. “The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial.” JAMA 263.10 (1990): 1371–­76. Print.
  • Moher, D. “Increasing Value and Reducing Waste in Biomedical Research: Who’s Listening?” Lancet 387.10027 (2015): 1573–­86. Print.
  • Moher, D., and D. G. Altman. “Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature.” PLoS Med 12.9 (2015): e1001864. Print.
  • Moylan, Elizabeth. “Who Owns Peer Review?” BioMed Central (blog) 10 Sept. 2015. Web.
  • Mulligan A., L. Hall, and E. Raphael. “Peer Review in a Changing World: An International Study Measuring the Attitudes of Researchers.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64.1 (2012): 132–­61. Web.
  • Nature Publishing Group. “Working Double-­Blind: Should There Be Author Anonymity in Peer Review?” Nature.com, 2008. Web.
  • Nicholas, David, et al. “Peer Review: Still King in the Digital Age.” Learned Publishing 28.1 (2015): 15–­21. Print.
  • Nielsen, Michael. “Three Myths about Scientific Peer Review.” Michael Nielson (blog) 8 Jan. 2009. Web. <http://​michaelnielsen​.org/​blog/​three​-myths​-about​-scientific​-peer​-review/​>.
  • Oransky, Ivan. “17 Retractions from Sage Journals Bring Total Fake Peer Review Count to 250.” Retraction Watch (blog) 19 Aug. 2015. Web. <http://​retractionwatch​.com/​2015/​08/​19/​17​-retractions​-from​-sage​-journals​-bring​-total​-fake​-peer​-review​-count​-to​-250/>.
  • “Overview: Nature’s Peer Review Trial.” Nature (Dec. 2006). Web. doi:10.1038/nature05535.
  • Padula, Danielle. “Possibilities for Peer Reviewer Recognition: ORCID, CASRAI & F1000 Working Group.” Scholastica (blog) 25 June 2015. Web.
  • “Peer Review on Trial.” Nature 441.7094 (2006): 668. Web.
  • “Prince of Wales Opens Royal Society’s Refurbished Building.” Royal Society 7 July 2004. Web.
  • Rennie, Drummond. “Editorial Peer Review: Its Development and Rationale.” Peer Review in Health Sciences (1999): 1–­13. Web.
  • ———. “Let’s Make Peer Review Scientific.” Nature 535 (2016): 31–­33. Print.
  • Rennie, Drummond, and A. Flanagin. “The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: A Call for Research.” JAMA 313.20 (2015): 2031–­32. Print.
  • Rothwell, P. M. “Reproducibility of Peer Review in Clinical Neuroscience: Is Agreement between Reviewers Any Greater than Would Be Expected by Chance Alone?” Brain 123.9 (2000): 1964–­69. Web.
  • Shashikiran, N. D. “The Art of Scientific Writing.” Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 31.4 (2013): 213–­14.
  • Smith, Jan. “Peer Review: A Vital Ingredient.” Serials 4.2 (1991): 9–­12. Print.
  • Smith, R. “Opening Up BMJ Peer Review.” BMJ 318.7175 (1999): 4–­5. Web.
  • Spier, Ray. “The History of the Peer-­Review Process.” Trends in Biotechnology 20.8 (2002): 357–­58. Web.
  • Springer. “Retraction of Articles from Springer Journals.” Springer Nature 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 11 Jan. 2017. <http://​www​.springer​.com/​gb/​about​-springer/​media/​statements/​retraction​-of​-articles​-from​-springer​-journals/​735218>.
  • “Striving for Excellence in Peer Review.” Nature Neuroscience 12.1 (2009): 1. Web.
  • van Rooyen, S., et al. “Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial.” BMJ 318.7175 (1999): 23–­27. Print.
  • Walsh, E. “Open Peer Review: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” British Journal of Psychiatry 176.1 (2000): 47–­51. Print.
  • Ware, Mark. “Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives.” Publishing research consortium summary papers, 2008. Web.
  • Watkinson, Anthony. “Wiley.” Wiley Exchanges 1 July 2005. Web.
  • Weicher, Maureen. “Peer Review and Secrecy in the ‘Information Age.’” Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 45.1 (2008): 1–­12. Print.
  • Weller, Ann C. “Editorial Peer Review for Electronic Journals: Current Issues and Emerging Models.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51.14 (2000): 1328–­33. Print.
  • Williamson, Alex. “What Will Happen to Peer Review?” Learned Publishing 16.1 (2003): 15–­20. Web.
  • Winker, Margaret. “The Promise of Post-­publication Peer Review: How Do We Get There from Here?” Learned Publishing 28.2 (2015): 143–­45. Print.
  • Xia, Jingfeng. “Who Publishes in ‘Predatory’ Journals?” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66.7 (2015): 1406–­17. Print.