| Homepage |
| Search |
The peer review process is not without flaws. The birth of the open access publication model and the rise of a more open science presents an ideal opportunity to re-evaluate the transparency of editorial and peer review practices. Many suggestions and hints are given to critically evaluate open peer review process. Hames I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Blackwell, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. 2007. xii, 293. This is a handbook on how the process of peer reviewing and manuscript management should be carried out. Chapter headings are: The peer-review process—how to get going. Manuscript submission and initial checks on completeness and suitability. The full review process. The decision-making process for reviewed manuscripts. Moving to on-line submission and review. Reviewers —a precious resource. The obligations and responsibilities of the people involved in peer review. Misconduct in scientific research and publishing —what it is and how to deal with it. Lieff Benderly B. Dealing with deception. ScienceCareers.org 2007 Jan 19. Echoes of the recent Korean stem cell scandal continue to reverberate, most recently in a report commissioned by the journal Science to examine how it can keep from falling victim to future frauds. Finding protection from the perils of potentially disastrous scientific deceptions is an important issue not only for journal editors but also for researchers in the early stages of their careers. Regehr G, Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education 2006; 40:832–839. A web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004. Authors and reviewers who chose to respond to the survey voted strongly in favour of continuing the double-blinding procedure of concealing the identities of both authors and reviewers during the review process. Determining the replicability of these findings in other academic fields would reveal the extent to which this social construction of peer review is idiosyncratic to medical education. Schulz WG. Giving proper credit. Chemical & Engineering News 2007; 85(12):35–38. Stockholm University has sanctioned an associate professor of chemistry, Armando Córdova, for research misconduct. He works in the emerging field of oranocatalysis. In a number of cases, the investigation found that Córdova violated scientific ethics in his quest to publish research results. © Copyright 2008 by European Association of Science Editors Top of Page |
|
|