peer review - materials for the workshop: How to Peer Review Research Papers - An Introduction
 

 

Part 1 - A choice of guidelines for referees
from different journals

 

1. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry

2. Annals of Probability

3. Annals of Thoracic Surgery

4. British Medical Journal

5. British Journal of Radiology

6. Canadian Journal of Public Health

7. Ecological Society of America Journals

8. Education for Chemical Engineers

9. Frontiers in Microelectronics and Information Technology

10. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

11. Institute of Physics

12. Internal Medicine

13. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructure Research

14. Issues in Integrative Studies

15. Journal of Marriage and Family

16. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning

17. Nature

18. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy

19. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter

20. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series A

 

+ extra: Philip E. Bourne & Alon Korngreen (2006) Ten simple rules for reviewers.
PLoS Computation Biology 2, 9: e110

 

Elizabeth Wager, Fiona Godlee & Tom Jefferson (2002) How to Survive Peer Review. BMJ Books

 

Part 2 - Short articles/news items on peer review

 

 

Anonymous (and without date) The process of peer review and publication in the interactive and scientific journal eEarth. eEarth http://www.electronic-earth.net/review/index.html

 

Anonymous (2006) Nature’s peer review trial. Nature doi:10.1038/nature05535

 

Anonymous (2008) Reducing the costs of peer review. Nature Neuroscience 11, 4: 375

 

Frank Davidoff (1998) Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the
blinded
. Annals of Internal Medicine 128, 1: 66-68

 

European Science Foundation (2006) Peer review ‘may stifle novel approaches’,
concludes international conference
. News Release

 

Jim Giles (2007) Open access journal will publish first, judge later. Nature, News 445: 9

 

Sandra Goldbeck-Wood (1998) What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?

British Medical Journal 316: 86

 

Klaus Jaffe (2006) Peer review could be improved by market forces. Nature, Correspondence 439: ?

 

Alexandra List (2006) Reviewers’ reports should in turn be peer reviewed. Nature, Correspondence 442: ?

 

Peter A. Lawrence (2003) The politics of publication. Nature 422: 259-261

 

C. Makropoulos, D. Butler. & C. Maksimovic (2006) Discussion of “Editorial—The peer-review system:
prospects and challenges."
 Hydrological Sciences 51, 2: 350-351

 

Marc Hauser & Ernst Fehr (2007) An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology 5, 4: e107 

 

 

 

Part 3 - Recommended longer readings on peer review
(articles b, c, and d are contained in the course-pack)

 

 

a. Eric Berger (2006) Peer review: a castle built on sand or the bedrock of scientific publishing? Annals of Emergency Medicine 47, 2: 157-159;           

 

b. Frederic Hoppin (2002) How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166: 1019-1023;    

 

c. James M. Provenzale & Robert J. Stanley (2005) A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. American Journal of Radiology 185: 848-854;    

 

d. Alan J. Smith (1990) The task of the referee. IEEE Computer 23, 4: 65-71;      

 

e. UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2002) Peer review. Postnote, September 182: 1-4;     

 

f. Alex Williamson (2003) What will happen to peer review? Learned Publishing 16: 15-20

 

 

 Part 4 - Further reading list
in case of further interest in peer review

 

 

Balistreri WD (2007) Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts. Journal of Pediatrics 151, 2: 107-108

Benos DJ, Kirk KL & Hall JE (2005) How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education 27: 47-52

Bergman AB (1980) Confessions of a reviewer. Pediatrics 66, 5: 808-809

Bordage G (2001) Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine 76, 9: 889-896

Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R & Lortie CJ (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 1: 4-6, see also reply by Primack RB & Marrs R (2008) Bias in the review process. Biological Conservation 141: 2919-2920, by Whittaker RJ (2008) Journal review and gender equality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 9: 478-479 as well as the other reactions mentioned in these two replies.

Campanario JM (2002) El sistema de revision por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient. 25, 3: 166-184

Cassey P & Blackburn TM (2003) Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 8: 375-376

Diodoro DL (2003) Dalle riviste cartacee all'on-line: come cambieranno le pubblicazioni medico-scientifiche nel prossimo futuro. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 60, 2: 141-146

Fisher RS & Powers LE (2004) Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside. Epilepsia 45, 8: 889-894

Forscher BK (1964) Rules for referees. Science 150, 3694: 319-321

Forsdyke DR (1993) On giraffes and peer review. FASEB Journal 7: 619-621

Garfield E (1986) Opinion and conjecture on the effectiveness of refereeing. Part 1. Current Contents 31: 3-11

Giles J (2006) The trouble with replication. Nature, News 442: 344-347

Godlee F (2002) Making reviewers visible. openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 287: 2762-2765

Grod ON, Budden AE, Tregenza T, Koricheva J, Leimu R, et al. (2008) Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution. PLoS One 3, 9: e3202

Guildford WH (2001) Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiological Education 25: 167–75

Isaacs D (2004) Who teaches the referee? Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health 40: 397-398

Jefferson T & Godlee F (2003) Peer Review in Health Sciences. Blackwell BMJ Books, 2nd ed. - see the related online training materials at: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/reviewers/training-materials

Lee AS (1995) Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management 13, 1: 87-92

Mackey DA (2006) Training peer reviewers. Nature 443: 880 

McPeek MA et al. (2009) The golden rule of reviewing. The American Naturalist 173, 5: 155-158

Nicholson JK (2006) Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data. Nature, Correspondence 440: 992

Nature’s peer review debate (2006) http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html

Neff BD & Olden JD (2006) Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience 56, 4: 333-340

Pautasso M (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics, in press 

Pautasso M & Pautasso C (2010) Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers. European Review 18, 2: 227-237

Pautasso M & Schaefer H (2010) Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics 84: 307-315

Piolat A & Vauclair J (2004) Le processus d'expertise éditoriale avant et avec Internet. Pratiques Psychologiques 10: 255-272

Riisgard HU (2004) Peer review: journal articles versus research proposals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 277: 301-309

Rosenbaum P (2005) On the value of being a reviewer. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 47: 147

Rosenfield D & Hoffman SJ (2009) Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback. Canadian Medical Association Journal 181, 12: E301-E305

Schmid S (2006) Approaching the critical task of peer review. American Society for Cell Biology Newsletter, September 2006: 24-25

Schmitt HJ (1990) Thoughts of a reviewer. European Journal of Pediatrics 149: 822-824

Seals DR & Tanaka H (2000) Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education 23, 1: 52-58

Siegelman SS (1991) Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 178: 637-642

Thomas RJS (2006) Understanding the peer review process. World Journal of Surgery 30: 1366-1367


Thomas SP (1998) The long journey to publication: some thoughts on the journal review process. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 19: 415-418

 

Tobin MJ (2002) Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166: 1013-1014

Tregenza T (2002) Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 8: 349-350

Wilson JR (2002) Responsible authorship and peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 155-174

 

+ extra: quotes from referees from Environmental Microbiology (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008)

 

 

[home]