The changing forms and expectations of peer review

被引：110
作者：
S. P. J. M. ( Serge) Horbach
W. ( Willem) Halffman
机构：
[1] Radboud University Nijmegen,Faculty of Science, Institute for Science in Society
来源：
Research Integrity and Peer Review | / 3卷 / 1期
关键词：
Scientific integrity; Scientific misconduct; Peer review; Innovation; Scientific publishing;
D O I：
10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed science to be in a state of crisis. A key concern in this debate has been the extent to which science is capable of self-regulation. Among various mechanisms, the peer review system in particular is considered an essential gatekeeper of both quality and sometimes even integrity in science.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 168 条
[1]  
Altman DG(1998)Statistical reviewing for medical journals Stat Med 17 2661-2674
[2]  
Auer NJ(1955)Notice to contributors American Sociological Review 20 341-279
[3]  
Krupar EM(2001)Mouse click plagiarism: the role of technology in plagiarism and the librarian's role in combating it Library Trends 49 415-352
[4]  
Baldwin M(2013)‘Keeping in the race’: physics, publication speed and national publishing strategies in nature, 1895–1939 Br J Hist Sci 47 257-91
[5]  
Baldwin M(2015)Credibility, peer review, and Nature, 1945–1990 Notes Rec R Soc journal of the history of science 69 337-126
[6]  
Baldwin M(2017)In referees we trust? Phys Today 70 44-92
[7]  
Barroga EF(2013)Cascading peer review for open-access publishing Eur Sci Ed 39 90-45
[8]  
Begley CG(2015)Reproducibility in science Circ Res 116 116-391
[9]  
Ioannidis JP(1976)Editorial practices of psychiatric and related journals: implications for women Am J Psychiatr 133 89-245
[10]  
Benedek EP(2002)From book censorship to academic peer review Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures 12 11-1329
12345678910