Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
3 "Irene Hames"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Training Material
Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist
Irene Hames
Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42.   Published online February 19, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61
  • 26,995 View
  • 457 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
This is a republication of Appendix 1, The Golden Rules and the Peer-Review Good Practice Checklist, from the author’s book, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice, published in 2007 by Wiley-Blackwell in association with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), with the permission of the author and publisher (ISBN: 978-1-4051-3159-9, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/ productCd-1405131594.html).

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
    Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
    Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538.     CrossRef
  • Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue
    Miltos K. Lazarides, George S. Georgiadis, Nikolaos Papanas
    The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds.2020; 19(3): 227.     CrossRef
  • Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript
    Garry J. Scrimgeour, Shelley D. Pruss
    Freshwater Science.2016; 35(4): 1076.     CrossRef
Reviews
The changing face of peer review
Irene Hames
Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):9-12.   Published online February 13, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9
  • 24,178 View
  • 223 Download
  • 13 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF

It is a time of great innovation in peer review. Traditional models are being adapted and completely new ones introduced. Independent peer-review services are also starting to be offered by organizations outside the traditional journal ecosphere. In both new and established systems, the importance of increasing openness, transparency, and interaction between peer-review participants is being recognized, and these are being introduced to varying degrees. Concern with the ‘wastage’ of review effort in traditional peer review, where manuscripts often go from journal to journal, being reviewed afresh at each, before being accepted for publication, is also being addressed. Reviews are being transferred (‘cascaded’) and shared between some journals. The separation of the two basic functions of peer review—critical review and selection—as originally introduced by the journal PLOS ONE has been a major innovation, leading to the publication of sound work irrespective of its perceived novelty, interest, or importance. Post-publication review is also becoming more important and is another growth area. The concept of ‘portable’ reviews has been introduced, where authors can take reviews with them—either after they have obtained them from a peer-review provider in return for a fee or had their manuscript reviewed and declined at some journals—and include them with submissions to journals. The dynamics of publication are changing alongside, with journals able to ‘bid’ for papers that have been reviewed by independent organizations and make publishing offers to the authors. A number of innovations and ‘alternative’ peer-review models are described. They all, however, face many of the same issues as traditional peer review, and the same basic principles of good and ethical practice apply.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Experience with “Select Crowd Review” in Peer Review for The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon: 1-Year Experience
    Roman Gottardi, Peter Thomas Henning, Jessica Bogensberger, Markus K. Heinemann
    The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.2023; 71(08): 609.     CrossRef
  • Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
    Serge P. J. M. Horbach, Willem Halffman
    Minerva.2020; 58(2): 139.     CrossRef
  • The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count
    Qianjin Zong, Lili Fan, Yafen Xie, Jingshi Huang
    Online Information Review.2020; 44(3): 583.     CrossRef
  • Innovative Strategies for Peer Review
    Edward Barroga
    Journal of Korean Medical Science.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices
    Valerie Matarese, Karen Shashok
    Publications.2019; 7(2): 24.     CrossRef
  • The changing forms and expectations of peer review
    S. P. J. M. Horbach, W. ( Willem) Halffman
    Research Integrity and Peer Review.2018;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • What is open peer review? A systematic review
    Tony Ross-Hellauer
    F1000Research.2017; 6: 588.     CrossRef
  • What is open peer review? A systematic review
    Tony Ross-Hellauer
    F1000Research.2017; 6: 588.     CrossRef
  • Peer‐review warning: system error, reviewers not found
    Lluís Brotons
    Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.2015; 13(5): 241.     CrossRef
  • Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’?
    Joanne Doyle, Michael Cuthill
    Higher Education Research & Development.2015; 34(3): 671.     CrossRef
  • Emerging trends in peer review—a survey
    Richard Walker, Pascal Rocha da Silva
    Frontiers in Neuroscience.2015;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Journal Metrics-Based Position ofDiabetes & Metabolism Journalafter the Change of Its Text Language to English
    Sun Huh
    Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2014; 38(3): 187.     CrossRef
  • How Far Has theInternational Neurourology JournalProgressed Since Its Transformation Into an English Language Journal?
    Sun Huh
    International Neurourology Journal.2014; 18(1): 3.     CrossRef
  • Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
    Kihong Kim
    Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2.     CrossRef
Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century
Irene Hames
Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):4-8.   Published online February 13, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4
  • 21,691 View
  • 157 Download
  • 4 Web of Science
  • 7 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF

Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective
    Christopher J. Peterson, Cynthia Orticio, Kenneth Nugent
    Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(3): 394.     CrossRef
  • Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
    Russell P. Hall
    JID Innovations.2022; 2(6): 100162.     CrossRef
  • JID Innovations and Peer Review
    Russell P. Hall
    JID Innovations.2021; 1(3): 100056.     CrossRef
  • Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
    Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams
    Biochemical Pharmacology.2017; 138: 7.     CrossRef
  • Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
    Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt, Jelte M. Wicherts
    PLOS ONE.2017; 12(12): e0189311.     CrossRef
  • Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
    Kihong Kim
    Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2.     CrossRef
  • The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014
    Pippa Smart
    Science Editing.2014; 1(2): 52.     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing