Literature DB >> 33900654

Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers.

Joel D Boerckel1, Lilian I Plotkin2, Natalie A Sims3.   

Abstract

The journals of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research [JBMR] and its sister journal JBMR Plus) recognize peer review, whether pre- or post-publication, as an essential guard of scientific integrity and rigor that shapes academic discourse in our field. In this Perspective, we present a vision and philosophy of peer review in a rapidly changing publishing landscape. We emphasize the importance of journal peer reviewers as active players in shaping collegial behavior in the musculoskeletal research community and provide information about benefits and resources available for reviewers and reviewers-in-training. Publishing is becoming increasingly transparent, bringing benefits to authors, to reviewers, and to the scientific community at large. We discuss new initiatives such as transparent peer review and preprint servers, the ways they are changing scientific publishing, and how JBMR is responding to broaden the impact of musculoskeletal research. We emphasize the need to change any perception of peer reviewers as gatekeepers to viewing them as shepherds, who partner with authors and editors in the publishing endeavor. Promoting access, transparency, and collegiality in the way we assess science in our community will elevate its quality, clarify its communication, and increase its societal impact.
© 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Entities:  

Keywords:  CLINICAL STUDIES; DISEASES AND DISORDERS OF/RELATED TO BONE; PRACTICE/POLICY-RELATED ISSUES; PRECLINICAL STUDIES

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33900654      PMCID: PMC8292169          DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.390


  12 in total

1.  Pros and cons of open peer review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  The history of the peer-review process.

Authors:  Ray Spier
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 19.536

3.  Accelerating scientific publication in biology.

Authors:  Ronald D Vale
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The evolution of editorial peer review.

Authors:  J C Burnham
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Opening up BMJ peer review.

Authors:  R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-02

Review 6.  Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research.

Authors:  Shane P Desselle; Aleda M Chen; Mohamed Amin; Parisa Aslani; Dalia Dawoud; Michael J Miller; Lotte Stig Norgaard
Journal:  Res Social Adm Pharm       Date:  2019-05-12

7.  If you can't be kind in peer review, be neutral.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Broadening Our Horizons: JBMR and JBMR Plus Embrace Preprints.

Authors:  Erin Bove-Fenderson; Katie Duffy; Michael Mannstadt
Journal:  JBMR Plus       Date:  2018-03-12

9.  A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences.

Authors:  Bodo M Stern; Erin K O'Shea
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Implementing a "publish, then review" model of publishing.

Authors:  Michael B Eisen; Anna Akhmanova; Timothy E Behrens; Diane M Harper; Detlef Weigel; Mone Zaidi
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 8.140

View more
  1 in total

1.  JID Innovations and Peer Review.

Authors:  Russell P Hall
Journal:  JID Innov       Date:  2021-10-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.