Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers

被引:235
作者
Mulligan, Adrian [1 ]
Hall, Louise [1 ]
Raphael, Ellen [2 ]
机构
[1] Elsevier Ltd, Oxford OX5 1GB, England
[2] Sense Sci, London EC1R 0DP, England
来源
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY | 2013年 / 64卷 / 01期
关键词
questionnaires; publishing; evaluation; AUTHORS WANT; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1002/asi.22798
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
This large-scale international study measures the attitudes of more than 4,000 researchers toward peer review. In 2009, 40,000 authors of research papers from across the globe were invited to complete an online survey. Researchers were asked to rate a number of general statements about peer review, and then a subset of respondents, who had themselves peer reviewed, rated a series of statements concerning their experience of peer review. The study found that the peer review process is highly regarded by the vast majority of researchers and considered by most to be essential to the communication of scholarly research. Nine out of 10 authors believe that peer review improved the last paper they published. Double-blind peer review is considered the most effective form of peer review. Nearly three quarters of researchers think that technological advances are making peer review more effective. Most researchers believe that although peer review should identify fraud, it is very difficult for it to do so. Reviewers are committed to conducting peer review in the future and believe that simple practical steps, such as training new reviewers would further improve peer review.
引用
收藏
页码:132 / 161
页数:30
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2010, 1 MONDAY
[2]  
[Anonymous], IND PHYS
[3]  
Björk BC, 2009, INFORM RES, V14
[4]  
Campbell P., 2006, NATURE PEER REV TRIA
[5]   MANUSCRIPT QUALITY BEFORE AND AFTER PEER-REVIEW AND EDITING AT ANNALS OF INTERNAL-MEDICINE [J].
GOODMAN, SN ;
BERLIN, J ;
FLETCHER, SW ;
FLETCHER, RH .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 121 (01) :11-21
[6]   Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants [J].
Grainger, David W. .
BIOMATERIALS, 2007, 28 (34) :5199-5203
[7]  
Harley D., 2010, CALIFORNIA J POLITIC
[8]   Something rotten at the core of science? [J].
Horrobin, DF .
TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2001, 22 (02) :51-52
[9]  
Jefferson T., 2007, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, P3
[10]   Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: author-reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing [J].
Mabe, MA ;
Amin, M .
ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 54 (03) :149-157