Literature DB >> 26495581

CREDIBILITY, PEER REVIEW, AND NATURE, 1945-1990.

Melinda Baldwin.   

Abstract

This paper examines the refereeing procedures at the scientific weekly Nature during and after World War II. In 1939 former editorial assistants L. J. F. Brimble and A. J. V. Gale assumed a joint editorship of Nature. The Brimble-Gale era is now most famous for the editors' unsystematic approach to external refereeing. Although Brimble and Gale did sometimes consult external referees, papers submitted or recommended by scientists whom the pair trusted were often not sent out for further review. Their successor, John Maddox, would also print papers he admired without external refereeing. It was not until 1973 that editor David Davies made external peer review a requirement for publication in Nature. Nature's example shows that as late as the 1960s a journal could be considered scientifically respectable even if its editors were known to eschew systematic external peer review.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26495581      PMCID: PMC4528400          DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Notes Rec R Soc Lond        ISSN: 0035-9149            Impact factor:   0.826


  7 in total

Review 1.  A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

Authors:  Jonathan P Tennant; Jonathan M Dugan; Daniel Graziotin; Damien C Jacques; François Waldner; Daniel Mietchen; Yehia Elkhatib; Lauren B Collister; Christina K Pikas; Tom Crick; Paola Masuzzo; Anthony Caravaggi; Devin R Berg; Kyle E Niemeyer; Tony Ross-Hellauer; Sara Mannheimer; Lillian Rigling; Daniel S Katz; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza; Nazeefa Fatima; Marta Poblet; Marios Isaakidis; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Sébastien Renaut; Christopher R Madan; Lisa Matthias; Jesper Nørgaard Kjær; Daniel Paul O'Donnell; Cameron Neylon; Sarah Kearns; Manojkumar Selvaraju; Julien Colomb
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-07-20

2.  The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Thomas Shenk
Journal:  mBio       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 7.867

3.  The state of the art in peer review.

Authors:  Jonathan P Tennant
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.

Authors:  S P J M Horbach; W Halffman
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 3.238

Review 5.  What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.

Authors:  Oliver Rudolf Herber; Caroline Bradbury-Jones; Susanna Böling; Sarah Combes; Julian Hirt; Yvonne Koop; Ragnhild Nyhagen; Jessica D Veldhuizen; Julie Taylor
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 6.  The changing forms and expectations of peer review.

Authors:  S P J M Serge Horbach; W Willem Halffman
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2018-09-20

Review 7.  The malate-aspartate shuttle (Borst cycle): How it started and developed into a major metabolic pathway.

Authors:  Piet Borst
Journal:  IUBMB Life       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 3.885

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.