Literature DB >> 17643484

Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants.

David W Grainger1.   

Abstract

The peer-review process remains a central part of the value and validity of scientific and technical publishing and proposal assessment. The peer review mechanism has many delicate components that should function most professionally and effectively for best results. An important central tenet is that all who seek to publish should freely avail themselves to review a commensurate load, considering many elements of professional conduct, ethics and responsibility in this process. The review itself should provide timely, unbiased, quality feedback to improve contributions to the system reviewers are serving. An additional component involves follow-on policing of published literature to assert its validity through consensus and validation. This short essay examines our collective duties as contributors, reviewers, and readers to the integrity and safekeeping of this essential quality control process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17643484     DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomaterials        ISSN: 0142-9612            Impact factor:   12.479


  7 in total

1.  Publication ethics--a guide for submitting manuscripts to Pharmaceutical Research.

Authors:  Peter W Swaan
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

Authors:  David Wendler; Franklin Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.

Authors:  John D Bowman
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 2.047

4.  The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers.

Authors:  Maurício Cantor; Shane Gero
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 2.963

5.  Timeliness: The authors' vested right but the editors' last concern.

Authors:  Mostafa Rad; Abdolghader Assarroudi; Mohammad Reza Armat; Nematullah Shomoossi
Journal:  J Res Health Sci       Date:  2016

6.  Reviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer.

Authors:  Sushil Ghanshyam Kachewar; Smita Balwant Sankaye
Journal:  Mens Sana Monogr       Date:  2013-01

7.  How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.

Authors:  Vivian M Nguyen; Neal R Haddaway; Lee F G Gutowsky; Alexander D M Wilson; Austin J Gallagher; Michael R Donaldson; Neil Hammerschlag; Steven J Cooke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.