An evaluation of the process of peer review

References

• Ali PA, Watson R. 2016. Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open. 3(4):193–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amaral O.B. 2022. To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature. 611:637.
   Google Scholar
• Amsen E. 2014. What is post-publication peer review? F1000 blognetwork. https://blog.f1000.com/2014/07/08/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/. Accessed October 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. 2003. Coping with peer rejection. Nature. 425:645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barczak G, Griffin A. 2021. How to conduct an effective peer review. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 200.
   Google Scholar
• Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, et al. 2007. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education. 31(2):145–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bluhm RK. 1960. Henry Oldenburg, F.R.S. (c. 1615–1677). Notes and Records of the Royal Society. 15:183–197.
   Google Scholar
• Brainard J. 2022. Journal declares an end to accepting or rejecting papers. Science. 378(6618):346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckeridge J. 2015. Fast-track fast one. Geoscientist. May 2015:9.
   Google Scholar
• Burnham JC. 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 263(10):1323–1329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cope JCW. 2018. What’s happening to peer review? Geoscientist. February 2018:9.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Højgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nicholls MG, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, et al. 2001. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. JAMA. 286(10):1232–1234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Else H. 2021. China’s clampdown on fake-paper factories picks up speed. Nature. 598(7879):19–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Else H, Van Noorden R. 2021. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature. 591(7851):516–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisch M. 1985. Whewell’s consilience of inductions – an evaluation. Philosophy of Science. 52(2):239–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher D, Parisis N. 2015. Social influence and peer review. EMBO Reports. 16(12):1588–1591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford E. 2013. Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 44(4):311–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fountain H. 2014. Science journal pulls 60 papers in peer-review fraud. The New York Times. July 11, 2014, Section A:3.
   Google Scholar
• Fox CW, Burns CS, Meyer JA. 2016. Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology. 30(1):140–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaudino M, Robinson NB, Di Franco A, Hameed I, Naik A, Demetres M, Girardi LN, Frati G, Fremes SE, Biondi‐Zoccai G. 2021. Effects of experimental interventions to improve the biomedical peer‐review process: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association. 10(15):e019903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hames I, editor. 2007. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice. Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishing; p. 293.
   Google Scholar
• Heesen R, Bright LK. 2021. Is peer review a good idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 72(3):635–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornby S, Benn J, Vinkenoog R, Goldberg S, Pound MJ. 2022. Methods in melissopalynology: colour determination of pollen pellets for colour vision deficient individuals. Palynology. 46:2062476.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter J. 2012. Post-publication review: opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6:63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassirer JP, Campion EW. 1994. Peer review: crude, and understudied, but indispensable. Journal of the American Medical Association. 273:96–97.
   Google Scholar
• Kearney MH, Freda MC. 2005. Nurse editors’ views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health. 28(6):444–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoepfler P. 2015. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics : TIG. 31(5):221–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronick DA. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 263(10):1321–1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(1):2–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markie M. 2015. Post-publication peer review, in all its guises, is here to stay. Insights the UKSG Journal. 28(2):107–110.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan N. 2016. Trend setters. Geoscientist. 26(8):25.
   Google Scholar
• Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. 2013. Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(1):132–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nield T. 2007. Impact factor. Geoscientist. 17(9):8–9.
   Google Scholar
• Nield T. 2015. Leading the blind. Geoscientist. 25(6):5.
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan L, Ma L, Doran P. 2021. An overview of post-publication peer review. Scholarly Assessment Reports. 3(1):11.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn A. 2017. Whewell on classification and consilience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 64:65–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie D. 1999. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. London (UK): BMJ (British Medical Journal) Books; p. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Riding JB. 2022. How to get published in Palynology (or any other journal). Palynology. 46(1):1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riding JB, Head MJ. 2018. Preparing photographic plates of palynomorphs in the digital age. Palynology. 42(3):354–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland F. 2002. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing. 15(4):247–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spier R. 2002. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology. 20(8):357–358.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. 2015. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research. 22(1):22–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. 1998. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 280(3):234–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. 2002. How to survive peer review. London (UK): BMJ Books; p. 72.
   Google Scholar
• Ware M. 2008. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC summary papers 4. London, (UK): Publishing Research Consortium; p. 22.
   Google Scholar
• Wicherts JM. 2016. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS One. 11(1):e0147913–19. pp.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuckerman HA, Merton RK. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva. 9(1):66–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar