1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Peer review, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/jerpp.19010.hyl-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl
2020-05-20
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. APA
    APA (2018) Summary report of journal operations. American Psychologist, 73(5), 683–684. 10.1037/amp0000347
    https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000347 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S.
    (2010) We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June13 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Belcher, D.
    (2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bornman, L., & Mutz, L.
    (2014) Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1288–1292.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brainard, J., & You, J.
    (2018) What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, Oct.25 2018 10.1126/science.aav8384
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384 [Google Scholar]
  6. Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C.
    (2012) Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science, October 2012 10.1126/science.1227833
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227833 [Google Scholar]
  7. Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J.
    (2007) The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4(1), e40. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M.
    (2003) Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 375–376. 10.1016/S0169‑5347(03)00160‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00160-5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coniam, D.
    (2012) Exploring reviewer reactions to papers submitted to academic journals. System. 40, 544–553. 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909 [Google Scholar]
  11. DeCoursey, T.
    (2006) The pros and cons of open peer review: Should authors be told who their reviewers are?Nature 2006 10.1038/nature04991
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04991 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ernst, E., & Resch, K. L.
    (1994) Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 124(2), 178–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W.
    (2003) The effectiveness of editorial peer review. InF. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp.62–75). London: BMJ Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fortanet, I.
    (2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N.
    (1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA280, 237–240. 10.1001/jama.280.3.237
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.237 [Google Scholar]
  16. Grove, J.
    (2018) Half of UK academics ‘suffer stress-linked mental health problems’. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6July 2018 <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/half-uk-academics-suffer-stress-linked-mental-health-problems (20February 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. H.
    (2019) Peer review bias: A critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670–676. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haug, C. J.
    (2015) Peer-review fraud – Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. 10.1056/NEJMp1512330
    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512330 [Google Scholar]
  19. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific communications. Eighth Report of Session 2010–2012. London: The Stationary Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Howard, G.
    (2012) Peer review as boundary work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(3), 322–335. 10.3138/jsp.43.3.322
    https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.43.3.322 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hyland, K.
    (2015) Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the production of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2016) Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic disadvantage. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F.
    (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007(Issue 2), Art. No.: MR000016.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kwan, B.
    (2013) Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 207–225. 10.1080/03075079.2011.576755
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.576755 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lamont, M.
    (2009) How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674054158
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054158 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B.
    (2013) Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 64, 2–17. 10.1002/asi.22784
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784 [Google Scholar]
  27. Merton, R.
    (1973) The normative structure of science. InR. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp.267–280). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E.
    (2013) 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, 132–161. 10.1002/asi.22798
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798 [Google Scholar]
  29. National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalogue
    National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalogue. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=dentistry%20OR%20dental%20OR%20oral%20OR%20facial (15June 2019).
  30. O’Connor, E., Cousar, M., Lentini, J., Castillo, M., Halm, K., & Zeffiro, T.
    (2017) Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 38, 230–235. 10.3174/ajnr.A5017
    https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5017 [Google Scholar]
  31. Okike, K., Kocher, M. S., Mehlman, C. T., Heckman, J. D., & Bhandari, M.
    (2008) Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 90(11), 2432–2437. 10.2106/JBJS.G.01687
    https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01687 [Google Scholar]
  32. Paltridge, B.
    (2013) Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it?International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1) 6–18. 10.1108/IJRD‑07‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-07-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2017) The discourse of peer review. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑48736‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0 [Google Scholar]
  34. Perez-Llantada, C.
    (2014) Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalization. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Prechelt, L., Graziotin, D., & Méndez Fernández, D.
    (2017) A community’s perspective on the status and future of peer review in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 30October 2017 <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.07196.pdf (20February 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Preston, A., & Culley, T.
    (2017) Formal recognition for peer review will propel research forward. LSE Impact Blog, 1June 2017 <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/06/01/formal-recognition-for-peer-review-will-propel-research-forward/ (20February 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Publishing Research Consortium
    Publishing Research Consortium (2016) Peer review survey 2015. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Reller, T.
    (2016) Elsevier publishing – A look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-publishing-a-look-at-the-numbers-and-more (20February 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Research Information Network
    Research Information Network (2008) Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Activities-costs-flows-summary.pdf (20February 2020).
  40. Rigby, J., Cox, D., & Julian, K.
    (2018) Journal peer review: A bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1087–1105. 10.1007/s11192‑017‑2630‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2630-5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., & Daniels, S. R.
    (2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295, 1675–1680. 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1675 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N.
    (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?Brain, 123, 1964–1969. 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964
    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.9.1964 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N.
    (2013) Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3): 157–169. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Saposnik, C., Ovbiagele, C., Raptis, C., Fisher, C., & Johnston, C.
    (2014) Effect of English proficiency and research funding on acceptance of submitted articles to Stroke journal. Stroke, 45(6), 1862–1868. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005413
    https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005413 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R.
    (2008) What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(10): 507–514. 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062
    https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sciullo, N., & Duncan, M.
    (2019) Professionalizing peer review: Suggestions for a more ethical and pedagogical review process. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50, 248–264. 10.3138/jsp.50.4.02
    https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.4.02 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sense About Science
    Sense About Science (2009) Peer Review Survey 2009: Full Report. www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_Review_Survey_Final_3.pdf [author query, link no longer available]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. SJR
    SJR (2017) Scimago Journal rankings. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=1200&category=1203 (20February 2020).
  49. Suls, J., & Martin, R.
    (2009) The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tardy, C.
    (2019) We are all reviewer 2: A window into the secret world of peer review. InP. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp.271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_15 [Google Scholar]
  51. Taylor & Francis
    (2015) Peer review in 2015: A global view. A white paper. London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Waggenknecht, D.
    (2018) Unhelpful, caustic and slow: The academic community should rethink the way publications are reviewed. LSE Impact Blog, 22June 2018 <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/06/22/unhelpful-caustic-and-slow-the-academic-community-should-rethink-the-way-publications-are-reviewed/ (20February 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ward, J. E., & Donnelly, N.
    (1998) Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC?Medical Journal of Australia, 169, 623–624. 10.5694/j.1326‑5377.1998.tb123438.x
    https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb123438.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Ware, M., & Mabe, M.
    (2015) The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (4th ed.). Oxford: STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Warne, V.
    (2016) Rewarding reviewers – Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29, 41–50. 10.1002/leap.1002
    https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error