Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States

References

• Andersen, L. E., and K. B. Wray. 2019. “Detecting Errors that Result in Retractions.” Social Studies of Science 49 (6): 942–954. doi:10.1177/0306312719872008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bart, S. C. 2019. “An Insider’s Tour to the Peer-Review Process at Inorganic Chemistry.” Inorganic Chemistry 58: 11271–11273. doi:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.9b02503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., Evans, S. (1998). What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal? Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 231–233
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 1999. UCINEDT 6.0 Version 1.00. UCINEDT 6.0 Version 1.00. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Bozung, B. R., K. Houston, J. F. Lilly 3rd, S. G. Jordan, L. A. Fordham, and G. Beck Dallaghan. 2021. “Student-led Peer Review of an Online Teaching File: Perspectives after 2 Years.” Medical Education Online 26 (1): 1843356. doi:10.1080/10872981.2020.1843356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, J. M. 2013. “Using a Collaborative Critiquing Technique to Develop Chemistry Students’ Technical Writing Skills.” Journal of Chemical Education 90 (6): 751–754. doi:10.1021/ed2007982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clary-Lemon, J., R. Gervacio, and D. Latimer. 2019. “Writing as a Mode of Learning: Staged Approaches to Chromatography and Writing in the Undergraduate Organic Lab.” Journal of Chemical Education 96 (5): 965–969. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crijns, T. J., J. S. E. Ottenhoff, and D. Ring. 2021. “The Effect of Peer Review on the Improvement of Rejected Manuscripts.” Accountability in Research 1–11. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1869547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel, H.-D. 1993. Guardians of Science. Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. Weinheim: VCH Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Professional Training, A.C.S. 2002. Graduate Education in Chemistry, Surveys of Programs and Participants. Washington. D.C.: American Chemical Society.
   Google Scholar
• de Vrieze, J. 2021. “Large Survey Finds Questionable Research Practices are Common.” Science 373: 265. doi:10.1126/science.373.6552.265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Editor. 2020. “Communication is Key to Constructive Peer Review.” Nature 582: 314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., and V. Larivière. 2016. “Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century.” PLOS ONE 11: e0149504. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., A. S. Halim, T. G. Chambers, A. Moon, R. S. Goldman, A. R. Gere, and G. V. Shultz. 2017. “Investigation of the Influence of a Writing-to-Learn Assignment on Student Understanding of Polymer Properties.” Journal of Chemical Education 94 (11): 1610–1617. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., E. P. Snyder-White, M. C. Connor, A. R. Gere, and G. V. Shultz. 2019. “Characterizing Peer Review Comments and Revision from a Writing-to-Learn Assignment Focused on Lewis Structures.” Journal of Chemical Education 96 (2): 227–237. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fopalakrishna, G., J. M. Wicherts, G. Vink, I. Stoop, O. R. van den Akker, G. ter Riet, and L. M. Bouter. 2021. “Prevalence of Responsible Research Practices among Academics in the Netherlands.” MetaArXiv Preprints. doi:10.31222/osf.io/xsn94.
   Google Scholar
• Gabbaï, F. P., and P. J. Chirik. 2018. “Dos and Don’ts: Thoughts on How to Respond to Reviewer Comments.” Organometallics 37: 2655. doi:10.1021/acs.organomet.8b00515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, X., Lei, P.-W. (2020). Effect of Quality Characteristics of Peer Raters on Rating Errors in Peer Assessment. International Journal of Testing 20 (3): 206–230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heesen, R., Bright, L.K. (2021). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3): 635–663
   Google Scholar
• Hopf, H., S. A. Matlin, G. Mehta, and A. Krief. 2020. “Blocking the Hype-Hypocrisy-Falsification-Fakery Pathway is Needed to Safeguard Science.” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 59:2150–2154. doi:10.1002/anie.201911889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horbach, S., W. Hepkema, and W. Halffman. 2020. “Hundreds of Journals′ Editorial Practices Captured in Database.” Nature (London, UK) 582: 32. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01628-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., and W. Halffman. 2019. “The Ability of Different Peer Review Procedures to Flag Problematic Publications.” Scientometrics 118: 339–373. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House, M. C., and J. I. Seeman. 2010. “Credit and Authorship Practices. Educational and Environmental Influences.” Accountability in Research 17: 223–256. doi:10.1080/08989621.2010.512857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamali, H. R., D. Nicholas, A. Watkinson, A. Abrizah, B. Rodríguez-Bravo, C. Boukacem-Zeghmouri, J. Xu, T. Polezhaeva, E. Herman, and M. Świgon. 2020. “Early Career Researchers and Their Authorship and Peer Review Beliefs and Practices: An International Study.” Learned Publishing 33: 142–152. doi:10.1002/leap.1283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier, W. L. 2021. “Dealing with Inappropriate-, Low-quality-, and Other Forms of Challenging Peer Review, Including Hostile Referees and Inflammatory or Confusing Critiques: Prevention and Treatment.” Accountability in Research 28 (3): 162–185. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1815010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., A. Utrobičić, and A. Marušić. 2020. “Motivations for Performing Scholarly Prepublication Peer Review: A Scoping Review.” .
   Google Scholar
• Penders, B., and D. M. Shaw. 2020. “Civil Disobedience in Scientific Authorship: Resistance and Insubordination in Science.” .
   Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2010a. “Influences on Authorship Issues. An Evaluation of Giving Credit.” Accountability in Research 17: 146–169. doi:10.1080/08989621003791986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2010b. “Influences on Authorship Issues. An Evaluation of Receiving, Not Receiving, and Rejecting Credit.” Accountability in Research 17: 176–197. doi:10.1080/08989621.2010.493094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2015. “Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community.” Accountability in Research 22 (6): 346–383. doi:10.1080/08989621.2015.1047707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silbiger, N. J., and A. D. Stubler. 2019. “Unprofessional Peer Reviews Disproportionately Harm Underrepresented Groups in STEM.” PeerJ 7: e8247. doi:10.7717/peerj.8247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh Chawla, D. 2019. “Elsevier Investigates Hundreds of Peer Reviewers for Manipulating Citations.” Nature (London, UK) 573: 174. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stadler, A.-M., J. Harrowfield, and J. Ramirez. 2013. “Places and Chemistry: Mulhouse. Chemists in Werner′s Birth City up to the 1st Half of the 20th Century.” Polyhedron 52: 1465–1470. doi:10.1016/j.poly.2013.01.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unerman, J. 2020. “Risks from Self-referential Peer Review Echo Chambers Developing in Research Fields.” The British Accounting Review 52: 100910. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2020.100910.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gemmeren, M., and B. List. 2021. “How and Why Crowd Reviewing Works.” Synlett 31: 885–891. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1705955.
   Google Scholar
• Yamane, T. 1973. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 1088. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K., C.-Y. Guo, and R. E. Glaser. 2018. “Challenges of Globalization and Successful Adaptation Strategies in Implementing a “Scientific Writing and Authoring” Course in China.” Journal of Chemical Education 95 (12): 2155–2163. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwicky, D. A., and M. D. Hands. 2016. “The Effect of Peer Review on Information Literacy Outcomes in a Chemical Literature Course.” Journal of Chemical Education 93 (3): 477–481. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar