References

TFEMPTeam

Peer Review 2015

Peer review in 2015

A global view

A white paper from Taylor & Francis

References and

Acknowledgements

OCTOBER 2015

© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group CC BY-NC


Reports and guides

>

Blogs

> Nature Publishing Group (2015) Author insights 2015 survey.

> Research Information Network (RIN) (2015) Scholarly communication and

peer review: the current landscape and future trends.

> Hames, I. (2013) COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. (COPE Council)

> Ware, M. (2013) Peer review: an introduction and guide. (Publishing

Research Consortium)

> University of Tennessee & CIBER Research Ltd. (2014) Trust and authority

in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition.

> Sense about Science (2012) Peer review: the nuts and bolts – a guide for

early career researchers.

> Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific

publications.

> Kavanagh, S. (11 September 2015) Peer review: evolution, experiment and

debate. ALPSP Blog

> Meadows, A. (10 September 2015) Peer review week – a celebration! The

Scholarly Kitchen

> Meadows, A. (31 July 2015) ORCID early adopter peer review program

progress report. ORCID Blog

> Crotty, D. (17 June 2015) The problem(s) with credit for peer review. The

Scholarly Kitchen

> Cochran, A. (7 May 2015) Sexism in peer review. The Scholarly Kitchen

> Eisen, M. (3 May 2015) Ending gender-based harassment in peer review. it

is NOT junk

> Aarssen, L. (26 March 2015) Why be a reviewer? MusingsOne.com

> Sense About Science (2009) Peer review survey 2009: full report.

> Who’s afraid of open peer review? (21 October 2014) PeerJ Blog

> Ware, M and Monkman, M. (2008) Peer review in scholarly journals:

perspective of the scholarly community – an international study.

(Publishing Research Consortium)

> Ware, M. (2008) PRC Summary Papers 4: peer review: benefits, perceptions

and alternatives. (Publishing Research Consortium)

> Harnad, S. (21 August 2014) Crowd-sourced peer review: substitute or

supplement for the current outdated system? LSE Impact Blog

> Green, A. (20 August 2014) Advancing peer review: a Q&A with Adam Etkin

of PRE. Wiley Exchanges

> Davis, P. (28 May 2014) What motivates reviewers? An experiment in

economics. The Scholarly Kitchen

> Kowalczuk, M. (4 April 2013) Peer pressure: the changing role of peer

review. BiomMed Central Blog

> Davis, P. (22 February 2013) Rewarding reviewers: money, prestige, or

some of both? The Scholarly Kitchen

> Clarke, M. (5 February 2013) An interview with Keith Collier, co-founder of

Rubriq. The Scholarly Kitchen

2 3


Journal articles

>

Other sources

> Moore, A. (2015) Author-suggested reviewers – Or the helper’s dilemma.

Bioessays 37(9), pp. 929

> Hall, E. (2015) Four reasons to feel good about the future of peer review.

Research Information

> Nicholas, D. et al. (2015) Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned

Publishing 28(1) pp. 15–21

> Chetty, R., Saez, E., & Sándor, L. (2014) What policies increase prosocial

behavior? An experiment with referees at the Journal of Public Economics.

Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3), pp. 169-88.

> Etkin, A. (2014). A new method and metric to evaluate the peer review

process of scholarly journals. Publishing Research Quarterly 30(1) pp.

23-38

> Johnston, D. (2015) Peer review under pressure. Research Information

> Willis, M. (2015) Peer review is dead: long live peer review! Slides from a

presentation at the UKSG 2015 annual conference

> Foster, J. (2014) Publishers could provide better support for early-career

researchers. Research Information

> Kriegeskorte, N. (2014) What lesson do rising retraction rates hold for peer

review? The Conversation

> Faulkes, Z. (2014) The vacuum shouts back: postpublication peer review on

social media. Neuron 82(2) pp. 258-260

> The Guardian view on the end of the peer review. [Editorial] (2014) The

Guardian

> Park, I.-U., Peacey, M. W., & Munafò, M. R. (2014). Modelling the effects of

subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature

506, pp. 93–96

> Beyond open access: visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by

post-publication peer review. [Research Topic] (2012) Frontiers

> Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2014) Peer review and scientific publishing in times of

web 2.0. Publishing Research Quarterly 30(1) pp. 39-49

> Van Noorden, R. (2011) Science publishing: the trouble with retractions

Nature, 478, pp. 26-28.

> Ware, M. (2011) Peer review: recent experience and future directions.

New Review of Information Networking (16)1 pp. 23-53

4 5


Journal and service examples

> The EMBO Journal

> F1000 Research

> PeerJ

> Peerage of Science

> Publons

> Rubriq

> PRE-val

Peer review in 2015 | A global view

Read the accompanying white paper at

authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com

6

More magazines by this user