Literature DB >> 27190154

Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.

Pedro Cintas1.   

Abstract

Scientific publishing has experienced profound changes in recent years, such as the advent of open-access journals, the increasing use of preprint archives or post-publication blogs, to name a few. One pillar still remains: peer review as a key ingredient that, in most cases, contributes to clarity and quality, often detecting errors and misinterpretations. Unfortunately, peer review is poorly recognized and good reviewers are rather a 'rare avis'. Even worse, this necessary task in science is generally overlooked in curricula and post-graduate education. Some considerations should help us all to ameliorate greatly our understanding and duties. © FEMS 2016. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  improved practices; misconduct issues; peer review; peer review indexes; post-publication review; scientific integrity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27190154     DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fnw115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett        ISSN: 0378-1097            Impact factor:   2.742


  6 in total

1.  Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Aceil Al-Khatib; Judit Dobránszki
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

Authors:  Jaime A Teixeira da Silva; Aceil Al-Khatib
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 3.  Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.

Authors:  Markus Rupp; Lydia Anastasopoulou; Elke Wintermeyer; Deeksha Malhaan; Thaqif El Khassawna; Christian Heiss
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee.

Authors:  Bhakti Hansoti; Mark I Langdorf; Linda S Murphy
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-08-08

5.  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 6.  A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

Authors:  Ketevan Glonti; Daniel Cauchi; Erik Cobo; Isabelle Boutron; David Moher; Darko Hren
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 8.775

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.