Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84 (1997)
AbstractThis paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, structured rating sheets, open peer review, results-blind review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish it.
Similar books and articles
Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright.Stevan Harnad - unknown
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Quality Control in Academic Publishing: Challenges in the Age of Cyberscience.Michael Nentwich - 2004 - Poiesis and Praxis 3 (3):181-198.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review.Joshua Guetzkow, Michèle Lamont & Grégoire Mallard - 2009 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 34 (5):573-606.
Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review.Mantas Radzvilas, Francesco De Pretis, William Peden, Daniele Tortoli & Barbara Osimani - forthcoming - Computational Economics:1-44.
The Twilight of the Scientific Age.Martín López Corredoira - forthcoming - Eikasia. Revista de Filosofía 54:119-146.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.David Bohm - 1964 - Philosophical Quarterly 14 (57):377-379.
Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195.
Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author's Formula.J. Scott Armstrong - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):197-199.