REFERENCES
- Aguillo, Isidro F. 2011. Google Scholar: No es oro todo lo que reluce [Google Scholar: All that glitters is not gold]. Anuario ThinkEPI 5: 211–215. http://www.thinkepi.net/tag/citas (accessed September 8, 2014).
- Anderson, Rick, and Kate B. Moore. 2013. Is the journal dead? Possible futures for serial scholarship. The Serials Librarian 64: 67–79. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2013.759877 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Baez, Marcos, Fabio Casati, Aliaksandr Birukou, and Maurizio Marchese. 2010. Liquid journals: Knowledge dissemination in the web era. http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1814/1/028.pdf (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Beware the Impact Factor. 2013. Nature Materials 12(2): 89–89. doi:10.1038/nmat3566. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nmat3566 (accessed September 8, 2014).
- Björk, Bo-Christer. 2011. A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13(4): e115. doi:10.2196/jmir.1802. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3278101&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Björk, Bo-Christer, and David Solomon. 2013. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics 7(4): 914–923. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000734 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Bohannon, John. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Brembs, Björn, and Marcus Munafò. 2013. Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3748 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Byrnes, Jarrett E. K., Edward B. Baskerville, Bruce Caron, Cameron Neylon, Carol Tenopir, Mark Schildhauer, Amber Budden, Lonnie Aarssen, and Christopher Lortie. 2013. The four pillars of scholarly publishing: The future and a foundation. PeerJ PrePrints 1: e11v1. doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.11 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro, and Daniel Torres-Salinas. 2010. Indicadores de uso y participación en las revistas científicas 2.0: El caso de PLOS ONE [Indicators for usage and participation in scientific journals 2.0: The case of PLOS ONE]. El Profesional de La Informacion 19(4): 431–434. doi:10.3145/epi.2010.jul.14. http://elprofesionaldelainformacion.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3145/epi.2010.jul.14 (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Campanario, Juan Miguel. 2002. El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): Muchos problemas y pocas soluciones [The peer-review system: Lots of problems, few solutions]. Revista Española de Documentación Científica 25(3): 267–285.
- Casati, Fabio, Fausto Giunchiglia, and Maurizio Marchese. 2007. Publish and perish: Why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. Ubiquity 3. doi:10.1145/1226694.1226695 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Cassella, M., and L. Calvi. 2010. New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment. IFLA Journal 36(1): 7–15. doi:10.1177/0340035209359559. http://ifl.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0340035209359559 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Correia, Ana Maria Ramalho, and José Carlos Teixeira. 2005. Reforming scholarly publishing and knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to the challenges of open access. Online Information Review 29(4): 349–364. doi:10.1108/14684520510617802. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14684520510617802 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Dall’Aglio, Paolo. 2006. Peer review and journal models. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608307 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Davis, Phil. 2012. Is PeerJ membership publishing sustainable? The Scholarly Kitchen. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/14/is-peerj-membership-publishing-sustainable/ (accessed October 2, 2014).
- De Vrieze, Jop. 2012. Online social network seeks to overhaul peer review in scientific publishing. Science. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/online-social-network-seeks-to.html?ref=hp (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio, and Rafael Ruiz-Pérez. 2009. La comunicación y edición científica: Fundamentos conceptuales [Scholarly communication and publishing: conceptual foundations]. In Homenaje a Isabel de Torres Ramírez: Estudios de documentación dedicados a su memoria [Tribute to Isabel de Torres Ramírez: Documentation articles dedicated to her memory], ed. Concepción García Caro and Josefina Vílchez Pardo, 131–150. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
- Fang, Ferric C., and Arturo Casadevall. 2011. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity 79(10): 3855–3859. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3187237&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Fang, Ferric C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(42): 17029–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Florian, Răzvan V. 2012. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00031. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3357530&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed August 5, 2014).
- Fox, Jeremy, and Owen L. Petchey. 2010. Pubcreds: Fixing the peer review process by “privatizing” the reviewer commons. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 91: 325–334. doi:10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325 (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Grieneisen, Michael L., and Minghua Zhang. 2012. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLOS ONE 7(10): e44118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3480361&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Harold Simon. 2012a. Supporting a new way to peer-review. BioMed Central Blog. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/2012/11/20/supporting-a-new-way-to-peer-review/ (accessed December 4, 2014).
- Harold, Simon. 2012b. BioMed Central journals supporting peerage of science. BioMed Central Blog. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2012/11/20/biomed-central-journals-supporting-peerage-of-science/ (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Hettyey, Attila, Matteo Griggio, Marlene Mann, Shirley Raveh, Franziska C. Schaedelin, Kerstin E. Thonhauser, Michaela Thoss, et al. 2012. Peerage of science: Will it work? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(4): 189–190. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.005. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22325345 (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Hunter, Jane. 2012. Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3431010&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed October 2, 2014).
- In search of credit. 2013. Nature 493(5). doi:10.1038/493005a. http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Keane, Edward. 2011. Bundles, Big Deals, and the copyright wars: What can academic libraries learn from the record industry crash? The Serials Librarian 61: 33–57. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.584247. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0361526X.2011.584247 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Kling, Rob, and Ewa Callahan. 2003. Electronic journals, the Internet, and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37:127–177.
- Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus. 2012. Open evaluation: A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00079. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3473231&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus, Alexander Walther, and Diana Deca. 2012. An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00094. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23162460 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Maron Nancy L., and K. Kirby Smith. 2008. Current models of digital scholarly communication: Results of an investigation conducted by Ithaka for the Association of Research Libraries. http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/digital-sc-models-report-2008.pdf (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Mulligan, Adrian, and Louise Hall. 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. doi:10.1002/asi.22798 (accessed December 4, 2014).
- Nosek, Brian A., and Yoav Bar-Anan. 2012. Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23(3): 217–243. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215 (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Pattinson, Damian. 2012. PLOS ONE launches a new peer review form. EveryONE. http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/12/13/plos-one-launches-a-new-peer-review-form/ (accessed December 4, 2014).
- Pöschl, U. 2010. Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. IFLA Journal 36(1): 40–46. doi:10.1177/0340035209359573. http://ifl.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0340035209359573 (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Pöschl, U. 2012. Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3389610&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Priem, Jason. 2013. Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature 495:437–440. doi:10.1038/495437a (accessed August 5, 2014).
- Priem, Jason, and Bradley M. Hemminger. 2012. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3319915&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Procter, Rob, Robin Williams, James Stewart, Meik Poschen, Helene Snee, Alex Voss, and Marzieh Asgari-Targhi. 2010. Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 368 (1926): 4039–4056. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0155. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679121 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Public Library of Science. 2011. Peer review—Optimizing practices for online scholarly communication. In Peer review in scientific publications. Eight Report of Session 2010–12, Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, ed. House of Commons and Science and Technology Committee. London: The Stationery Office Limited. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf (accessed August 5, 2014).
- Roldán, Alvaro. 2010. JCR 2009. Bibliometría. http://web.archive.org/web/20131101030821/http://www.bibliometria.com/jcr-2009 (accessed December 4, 2014).
- Smith, John W. T. 1999. The deconstructed journal—A new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing 12(2): 79–91.
- Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. 2006. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature04988. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Tanner, R. Michael. 2007. Copyrights and the paradox of scholarly publishing. http://hdl.handle.net/10027/118 (accessed June 17, 2014).
- Teixeira, Aurora A. C., and Mariana Fontes Costa. 2010. Who rules the ruler? On the misconduct of journal editors. Journal of Academic Ethics 8(2): 111–128. doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Van Noorden, Richard. 2013. PLOS profits prompt revamp. Nature 503: 320–321. doi:10.1038/503320a. http://www.nature.com/news/plos-profits-prompt-revamp-1.14205 (accessed October 2, 2014).
- Ware, Mark. 2008. Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC Summary Papers. London. http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf (accessed December 4, 2014).
- Ware, Mark. 2011. Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking 16(1): 23–53. doi:10.1080/13614576.2011.566812. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812 (accessed September 19, 2014).
- Ware, Mark, and Michael Mabe. 2009. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Oxford, UK. http://www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf (accessed September 19, 2014).