References
Peer Review 2015
Peer Review 2015
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Reports and guides<br />
><br />
Blogs<br />
> Nature Publishing Group (2015) Author insights 2015 survey.<br />
> Research Information Network (RIN) (2015) Scholarly communication and<br />
peer review: the current landscape and future trends.<br />
> Hames, I. (2013) COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. (COPE Council)<br />
> Ware, M. (2013) Peer review: an introduction and guide. (Publishing<br />
Research Consortium)<br />
> University of Tennessee & CIBER Research Ltd. (2014) Trust and authority<br />
in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition.<br />
> Sense about Science (2012) Peer review: the nuts and bolts – a guide for<br />
early career researchers.<br />
> Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific<br />
publications.<br />
> Kavanagh, S. (11 September 2015) Peer review: evolution, experiment and<br />
debate. ALPSP Blog<br />
> Meadows, A. (10 September 2015) Peer review week – a celebration! The<br />
Scholarly Kitchen<br />
> Meadows, A. (31 July 2015) ORCID early adopter peer review program<br />
progress report. ORCID Blog<br />
> Crotty, D. (17 June 2015) The problem(s) with credit for peer review. The<br />
Scholarly Kitchen<br />
> Cochran, A. (7 May 2015) Sexism in peer review. The Scholarly Kitchen<br />
> Eisen, M. (3 May 2015) Ending gender-based harassment in peer review. it<br />
is NOT junk<br />
> Aarssen, L. (26 March 2015) Why be a reviewer? MusingsOne.com<br />
> Sense About Science (2009) Peer review survey 2009: full report.<br />
> Who’s afraid of open peer review? (21 October 2014) PeerJ Blog<br />
> Ware, M and Monkman, M. (2008) Peer review in scholarly journals:<br />
perspective of the scholarly community – an international study.<br />
(Publishing Research Consortium)<br />
> Ware, M. (2008) PRC Summary Papers 4: peer review: benefits, perceptions<br />
and alternatives. (Publishing Research Consortium)<br />
> Harnad, S. (21 August 2014) Crowd-sourced peer review: substitute or<br />
supplement for the current outdated system? LSE Impact Blog<br />
> Green, A. (20 August 2014) Advancing peer review: a Q&A with Adam Etkin<br />
of PRE. Wiley Exchanges<br />
> Davis, P. (28 May 2014) What motivates reviewers? An experiment in<br />
economics. The Scholarly Kitchen<br />
> Kowalczuk, M. (4 April 2013) Peer pressure: the changing role of peer<br />
review. BiomMed Central Blog<br />
> Davis, P. (22 February 2013) Rewarding reviewers: money, prestige, or<br />
some of both? The Scholarly Kitchen<br />
> Clarke, M. (5 February 2013) An interview with Keith Collier, co-founder of<br />
Rubriq. The Scholarly Kitchen<br />
2 3
Change language