Literature DB >> 25633924

Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

David B Resnik1, Susan A Elmore2.   

Abstract

A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Editors; Ethics; Fairness; Integrity; Peer review; Publication; Quality; Reliability

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25633924     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  62 in total

1.  Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al.

Authors:  Robert J Whittaker
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Imanishi-Kari (continued).

Authors:  M O'Toole
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-08-15       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; Fiona Godlee; Lyda Osorio; Richard Smith
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.

Authors:  Travis I Lovejoy; Tracey A Revenson; Christopher R France
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2011-08

Review 5.  How to "peer review" a medical journal manuscript.

Authors:  S J Salasche
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.398

6.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.

Authors:  J M Stern; R J Simes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13

7.  Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts.

Authors:  Woo Suk Hwang; Sung Il Roh; Byeong Chun Lee; Sung Keun Kang; Dae Kee Kwon; Sue Kim; Sun Jong Kim; Sun Woo Park; Hee Sun Kwon; Chang Kyu Lee; Jung Bok Lee; Jin Mee Kim; Curie Ahn; Sun Ha Paek; Sang Sik Chang; Jung Jin Koo; Hyun Soo Yoon; Jung Hye Hwang; Youn Young Hwang; Ye Soo Park; Sun Kyung Oh; Hee Sun Kim; Jong Hyuk Park; Shin Yong Moon; Gerald Schatten
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-05-19       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review.

Authors:  In-Uck Park; Mike W Peacey; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract.

Authors:  Brian H Rowe; Trevor L Strome; Carol Spooner; Sandra Blitz; Eric Grafstein; Andrew Worster
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-03-19       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

Authors:  Michael L Callaham; John Tercier
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  13 in total

1.  Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure Policies of Environmental, Occupational, and Public Health Journals.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Brandon Konecny; Grace E Kissling
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.162

2.  Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.

Authors:  Jia Zhu; Gabriel Fung; Wai Hung Wong; Zhixu Li; Chuanhua Xu
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Common Topics of Publication and Levels of Evidence in the Current Hand Surgery Literature.

Authors:  Nicholas J Lemme; Benjamin R Johnston; Brandon C Smith; Adnan Prsic; Edward Akelman; Brian C Drolet
Journal:  J Hand Microsurg       Date:  2018-08-09

4.  How are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Aceil Al-Khatib
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Time for Revelation: Unmasking the Anonymity of Blind Reviewers.

Authors:  Govindasamy Agoramoorthy
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.

Authors:  Mehdi Dadkhah; Mohsen Kahani; Glenn Borchardt
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Susan A Elmore
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 1.902

8.  Trends in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Publications.

Authors:  Brian Sleasman; Caroline Chen; Alex M Caughman; Caroline Hoch; Daniel Scott; Christopher E Gross
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2022-06-20

9.  Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Authors:  Aceil Al-Khatib; Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.525

10.  Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports.

Authors:  Ivan Buljan; Daniel Garcia-Costa; Francisco Grimaldo; Flaminio Squazzoni; Ana Marušić
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 8.713

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.