“Scholarly peer review”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

History

The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.^[1]^[2]^[3]

The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process,^[4] began to involve external reviewers in the mid-19th-century,^[5] and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century.^[6]

Peer review became a touchstone of the scientific method, but until the end of the 19th century was often performed directly by an editor-in-chief or editorial committee.^[7]^[8]^[9]

Editors of scientific journals at that time made publication decisions without seeking outside input, i.e. an external panel of reviewers, giving established authors latitude in their journalistic discretion. For example, Albert Einstein's four revolutionary Annus Mirabilis papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the journal's editor-in-chief, Max Planck, and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, both future Nobel prize winners and together experts on the topics of these papers. On another occasion, Einstein was severely critical of the external review process, saying that he had not authorized the editor in chief to show his manuscript "to specialists before it is printed", and informing him that he would "publish the paper elsewhere".^[9]

While some medical journals started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that external reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, including being thanked by authors and editors.^[7]^[10] A 2003 editorial in Nature stated that, in the early 20th century, "the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."^[11] Nature itself instituted formal peer review only in 1967.^[12] Journals such as Science and the American Journal of Medicine increasingly relied on external reviewers in the 1950s and 1960s, in part to reduce the editorial workload.^[10] In the 20th century, peer review also became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review.^[1]{{rp|221}}

Gaudet^[13] provides a social science view of the history of peer review carefully tending to what is under investigation, here peer review, and not only looking at superficial or self-evident commonalities among inquisition, censorship, and journal peer review. It builds on historical research by Gould,^[14] Biagioli,^[15] Spier,^[9] and Rip.^[16] The first Peer Review Congress met in 1989.^[17] Over time, the fraction of papers devoted to peer review has steadily declined, suggesting that as a field of sociological study, it has been replaced by more systematic studies of bias and errors.^[23] In parallel with "common experience" definitions based on the study of peer review as a "pre-constructed process", some social scientists have looked at peer review without considering it as pre-constructed. Hirschauer proposed that journal peer review can be understood as reciprocal accountability of judgements among peers.^[18] Gaudet proposed that journal peer review could be understood as a social form of boundary judgement – determining what can be considered as scientific (or not) set against an overarching knowledge system, and following predecessor forms of inquisition and censorship.^[13]{{self-published inline|date=January 2016}}

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by academic scholars and professionals.{{Citation needed|date=February 2015}} Non-peer-reviewed work does not contribute, or contributes less, to the academic credit of scholar such as the h-index, although this heavily depends on the field.

Justification

It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.^[19]^[20]

The decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, ultimately lies with the publisher (editor-in-chief or the editorial board) to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. This is primarily for three reasons:{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

Reviewers are often anonymous and independent. However, some reviewers may choose to waive their anonymity, and in other limited circumstances, such as the examination of a formal complaint against the referee, or a court order, the reviewer's identity may have to be disclosed. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing).{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review helps to keep some invalid or unsubstantiated claims out of the body of published research and knowledge. Scholars will read published articles outside their limited area of detailed expertise, and then rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to have provided reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. Significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the invalid research.{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

For US universities, peer reviewing of books before publication is a requirement for full membership of the Association of American University Presses.^[21]

Procedure

In the case of proposed publications, the publisher (editor-in-chief or the editorial board, often with assistance of corresponding or associate editors) sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"). Communication is normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system like ScholarOne. Depending on the field of study and on the specific journal, there are usually one to three referees for a given article. For example, Springer states that there are two or three reviewers per article.^[22]

Step 1: Desk evaluation. An editor evaluates the manuscript to judge whether the paper will be passed on journal referees. At this phase many articles receive a “desk reject,” that is, the editor chooses not to pass along the article. The authors may or may not receive a letter of explanation.

Desk rejection is intended to be a streamlined process so that editors may move past nonviable manuscripts quickly and provide authors with the opportunity to pursue a more suitable journal. For example, the European Accounting Review editors subject each manuscript to three questions to decide whether a manuscript moves forward to referees: 1) Is the article a fit for the journal’s aims and scope, 2) is the paper content (e.g. literature review, methods, conclusions) sufficient and does the paper make a worthwhile contribution to the larger body of literature, and 3) does it follow format and technical specifications? If “no” to any of these, the manuscript receives a desk rejection.^[24]

Desk rejection rates vary by journal. For example, in 2017 researchers at the World Bank compiled rejection rates of several global economics journals; the desk rejection rate ranged from 21% (Economic Lacea) to 66% (Journal of Development Economics).^[25] The American Psychological Association publishes rejection rates for several major publications in the field, and although they do not specify whether the rejection is pre- or post- desk evaluation, their figures in 2016 ranged from a low of 49% to a high of 90%.^[26]

Step 2: Blind review. If the paper is not desk rejected, the editors send the manuscript to the referees, who are chosen for their expertise and distance from the authors. At this point, referees may reject, accept without changes (rare)^[27] or instruct the authors to revise and resubmit.

Reasons vary for acceptance of an article by editors, but Elsevier published an article where three editors weigh in on factors that drive article acceptance. These factors include whether the manuscript: delivers “new insight into an important issue,” will be useful to practitioners, advances or proposes a new theory, raises new questions, has appropriate methods and conclusion, presents a good argument based on the literature, and tells a good story. One editor notes that he likes papers that he “wished he’d done” himself.^[28]

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author, though a referee can also send 'for your eyes only' comments to the publisher; scientific journals observe this convention almost universally. The editor then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.^[29]

Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal or funding agency. For example, Nature recommends four courses of action:^[30]

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor(s) is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees,^[31] though he or she will most often do so. Furthermore, the referees in scientific publication do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. Proponents argue that if the reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other, the editor(s) can more easily verify the objectivity of the reviews. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus, with the decision instead often made by the editor(s) based on her best judgement of the arguments.

In situations where multiple referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. The paper may be rejected outright, or the editor may choose which reviewer’s point the authors should address.^[32] When a publisher receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor will often solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, the publisher may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If a publisher does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the publisher may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. An editor may convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point.^[33]

Even in these cases, however, publishers do not allow multiple referees to confer with each other, though each reviewer may often see earlier comments submitted by other reviewers. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions, but instead to provide material for an informed editorial decision. One early study regarding referee disagreement found that agreement was greater than chance, if not much greater than chance, on six of seven article attributes (e.g. literature review and final recommendation to publish),^[34] but this study was small and it was conducted on only one journal. At least one study has found that reviewer disagreement is not common, but this study is also small and on only one journal.^[35]

Some journals have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts. For example, the British Medical Journal^[43] and some Nature Research publications, such as Nature Communications.^[36]

Traditionally, reviewers would often remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard varies both with time and with academic field. In some academic fields, most journals offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not, or a referee may opt to sign a review, thereby relinquishing anonymity. Published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper. For example, Nature journals provide this option.^[30]

Sometimes authors may exclude certain reviewers: one study conducted on the Journal of Investigative Dermatology found that excluding reviewers doubled the chances of article acceptance.^[37] Some scholars are uncomfortable with this idea, arguing that it distorts the scientific process. Others argue that it protects against referees who are biased in some manner (e.g. professional rivalry, grudges).^[38] In some cases, authors can choose referees for their manuscripts. mSphere, an open-access journal in microbial science, has moved to this model. Editor-in-Chief Mike Imperiale says this process is designed to reduce the time it takes to review papers and permit the authors to choose the most appropriate reviewers.^[39] But a scandal in 2015 shows how this choosing reviewers can encourage fraudulent reviews. Fake reviews were submitted to the Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in the names of author-recommended reviewers, causing the journal to eliminate this option.^[40]

Recruiting referees

At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor.^[42] When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.^[43]

Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors may invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. For some journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also given the opportunity to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). {{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and can not be experts in all of them. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ among academic disciplines.{{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

One difficulty with respect to some manuscripts is that, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts, people who have themselves done work similar to that under review. This can frustrate the goals of reviewer anonymity and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Low-prestige or local journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts.{{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

A potential hindrance in recruiting referees is that they are usually not paid, largely because doing so would itself create a conflict of interest. Also, reviewing takes time away from their main activities, such as his or her own research. To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are authors themselves, or at least readers, who know that the publication system requires that experts donate their time. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership. {{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

Referees have the opportunity to prevent work that does not meet the standards of the field from being published, which is a position of some responsibility. Editors are at a special advantage in recruiting a scholar when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publishing entity in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. {{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

Peerage of Science is an independent service and a community where reviewer recruitment happens via Open Engagement: authors submit their manuscript to the service where it is made accessible for any non-affiliated scientist, and 'validated users' choose themselves what they want to review. The motivation to participate as a peer reviewer comes from a reputation system where the quality of the reviewing work is judged and scored by other users, and contributes to user profiles. Peerage of Science does not charge any fees to scientists, and does not pay peer reviewers. Participating publishers however pay to use the service, gaining access to all ongoing processes and the opportunity to make publishing offers to the authors.{{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

With independent peer review services the author usually retains the right to the work throughout the peer review process, and may choose the most appropriate journal to submit the work to.^[44]^[45] Peer review services may also provide advice or recommendations on most suitable journals for the work. Journals may still want to perform an independent peer review, without the potential conflict of interest that financial reimbursement may cause, or the risk that an author has contracted multiple peer review services but only presents the most favorable one.{{citation needed||date=January 2016}}

An alternative or complementary system of performing peer review is for the author to pay for having it performed. {{anchor|Rubriq}}Example of such service provider is Rubriq, which for each work assigns peer reviewers who are financially compensated for their efforts.^[46]

Different styles

Anonymous and attributed{{anchor|Anonymous}}{{anchor|Attributed}}

For most scholarly publications, the identity of the reviewers is kept anonymised (also called "blind peer review"). The alternative, attributed peer review involves revealing the identities of the reviewers. Some reviewers choose to waive their right to anonymity, even when the journal's default format is blind peer review.

In anonymous peer review, reviewers are known to the journal editor or conference organiser but their names are not given to the article's author. In some cases, the author's identity can also be anonymised for the review process, with identifying information is stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias.^[47]

Others support blind reviewing because no research has suggested that the methodology may be harmful and that the cost of facilitating such reviews is minimal.^[48] Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics.^[49]

In "double-blind" review, which has been fashioned by sociology journals in the 1950s^[50] and remains more common in the social sciences and humanities than in the natural sciences {{citation needed|date=December 2016}}, the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, lest the knowledge of authorship or concern about disapprobation from the author bias their review.^[51] Critics of the double-blind review process point out that, despite any editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person.^[52]^[53]

In many fields of "big science", the publicly available operation schedules of major equipments, such as telescopes or synchrotrons, would make the authors' names obvious to anyone who would care to look them up. Proponents of double-blind review argue that it performs no worse than single-blind, and that it generates a perception of fairness and equality in academic funding and publishing.^[54] Single-blind review is strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants, but no more so than double-blind review with easily identified authors.

As an alternative to single-blind and double-blind review, authors and reviewers are encouraged to declare their conflicts of interest when the names of authors and sometimes reviewers are known to the other. When conflicts are reported, the conflicting reviewer can be prohibited from reviewing and discussing the manuscript, or his or her review can instead be interpreted with the reported conflict in mind; the latter option is more often adopted when the conflict of interest is mild, such as a previous professional connection or a distant family relation. The incentive for reviewers to declare their conflicts of interest is a matter of professional ethics and individual integrity. Even when the reviews are not public, they are still a matter of record and the reviewer's credibility depends upon how they represent themselves among their peers. Some software engineering journals, such as the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, use non-blind reviews with reporting to editors of conflicts of interest by both authors and reviewers.{{citation needed|date=November 2018}}

A more rigorous standard of accountability is known as an audit. Because reviewers are not paid, they cannot be expected to put as much time and effort into a review as an audit requires. Therefore, academic journals such as Science, organizations such as the American Geophysical Union, and agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation maintain and archive scientific data and methods in the event another researcher wishes to replicate or audit the research after publication.^[55]^[56]^[57]

The traditional anonymous peer review has been criticized for its lack of accountability, the possibility of abuse by reviewers or by those who manage the peer review process (that is, journal editors),^[58] its possible bias, and its inconsistency,^[59] alongside other flaws.^[60]^[61] Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, asserts that the system has "well-known ills" and advocates "open peer review".^[62]

Open peer review

Starting in the 1990s, several scientific journals (including the high impact journal Nature in 2006) started experiments with hybrid peer review processes, allowing the open peer reviews in parallel to the traditional model. The initial evidence of the effects of open peer reviews was mixed. Identifying reviewers to the authors does not negatively impact, and may potentially have a positive impact upon, the quality of reviews, the recommendation regarding publication, the tone of the review and the time spent on reviewing. However, more of those who are invited to review decline to do so.^[63]^[64] Informing reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web and available to the wider public did not have a negative impact on quality of reviews and recommendations regarding publication, but it led to a longer time spent on reviewing, besides a higher reviewer decline rate. The results suggest that open peer review is feasible, and does not lead to poorer quality of reviews, but needs to be balanced against the increase in review time, and higher decline rates among invited reviewers.^[65]

A number of reputable medical publishers have trialed the open peer review concept. The first open peer review trial was conducted by The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) in cooperation with the University of Sydney Library, from March 1996 to June 1997. In that study 56 research articles accepted for publication in the MJA were published online together with the peer reviewers' comments; readers could email their comments and the authors could amend their articles further before print publication of the article.^[66] The investigators concluded that the process had modest benefits for authors, editors and readers.

Pre- and post-publication peer review {{anchor|Pre-publication}}{{anchor|Post-publication}}{{anchor|Postpublication}}

The process of peer review is not restricted to the publication process managed by publishing companies.

Pre-publication peer review

Manuscripts are typically reviewed by colleagues before submission, and if the manuscript is uploaded to preprint servers, such as ArXiv, BioRxiv or SSRN, researchers can read and comment on the manuscript. The practice to upload to preprint servers, and the activity of discussion heavily depend on the field,^[67]^[68] and it allows an open pre-publication peer review. The advantage of this method is speed and transparency of the review process. Anyone can give feedback, typically in form of comments, and typically not anonymously. These comments are also public, and can be responded to, therefore author-reviewer communication is not restricted to the typical 2-4 rounds of exchanges in traditional publishing. The authors from can incorporate comments from a wide range of people instead of feedback from the typically 3-4 reviewers. The disadvantage is that a far larger number of papers are presented to the community without any guarantee on quality.

Post-publication peer review

After a manuscript is published, the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature. A variation on this theme is open peer commentary; journals using this process solicit and publish non-anonymous commentaries on the "target paper" together with the paper, and with original authors' reply as a matter of course. The introduction of the "epub ahead of print" practice in many journals has made possible the simultaneous publication of unsolicited letters to the editor together with the original paper in the print issue.{{citation needed|date=November 2018}}

In addition to journals hosting their own articles' reviews, there are also external, independent websites dedicated to post-publication peer-review, such as PubPeer which allows anonymous commenting of published literature and pushes authors to answer these comments.^[69] It has been suggested that post-publication reviews from these sites should be editorially considered as well.^[70] The megajournals F1000Research, ScienceOpen and The Winnower publish openly both the identity of the reviewers and the reviewer's report alongside the article.

Some journals use postpublication peer review as formal review method, instead of prepublication review. This was first introduced in 2001, by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).^[71] More recently F1000Research, ScienceOpen and [https://thewinnower.com/ The Winnower] were launched as megajournals with postpublication review as formal review method.^[72]^[73]^[74] At both ACP and F1000Research peer reviewers are formally invited, much like at prepublication review journals. Articles that pass peer review at those two journals are included in external scholarly databases.^[75]

In 2006, a small group of UK academic psychologists launched Philica, the instant online journal Journal of Everything, to redress many of what they saw as the problems of traditional peer review. All submitted articles are published immediately and may be reviewed afterwards. Any researcher who wishes to review an article can do so and reviews are anonymous. Reviews are displayed at the end of each article, and are used to give the reader criticism or guidance about the work, rather than to decide whether it is published or not. This means that reviewers cannot suppress ideas if they disagree with them. Readers use reviews to guide their reading, and particularly popular or unpopular work is easy to identify.{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

Result-blind peer review

Studies which report a positive or statistically-significant result are far more likely to be published than ones which do not. A counter-measure to this positivity bias is to hide or make unavailable the results, making journal acceptance more like scientific grant agencies reviewing research proposals. Versions include:

Social media technologies and informal peer review

Recent research has called attention to the use of social media technologies and science blogs as a means of informal, post-publication peer review, as in the case of the #arseniclife (or GFAJ-1) controversy.^[107] In December 2010, an article published in Scienceexpress (the ahead-of-print version of Science) generated both excitement and skepticism, as its authors—led by NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon—claimed to have discovered and cultured a certain bacteria that could replace phosphorus with arsenic in its physiological building blocks. At the time of the article’s publication, NASA issued press statements suggesting that the finding would impact the search for extraterrestrial life, sparking excitement on Twitter under the hashtag #arseniclife, as well as criticism from fellow experts who voiced skepticism via their personal blogs.^[108] Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the article attracted media attention,^[109] and one of the most vocal scientific critics—Rosemary Redfield—formally published in July 2012^[110] regarding her and her colleagues' unsuccessful attempt to replicate the NASA scientists’ original findings.

Researchers following the impact of the #arseniclife case on social media discussions and peer review processes concluded the following:

Criticism

Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.^[113] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.^[114]^[115]

The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories^[116]^[11]^[117] and may be biased against novelty.^[118] A linguistic analysis of review reports suggests that reviewers focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal.^[119] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,^[120]^[121] and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. There are also signs of gender bias, favouring men as authors.^[122] As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.^[123] A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.^[124]

Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.^[61]^[59]^[125]

Failures{{anchor|Failures}}

Peer review fails when a peer-reviewed article contains fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions and that could have been identified by more careful reviewers. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor.^[126]

Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared. The process occasionally detects fraud, but is not designed to do so.^[127] When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted.

A 1998 experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers failed to detect some manuscript errors and the majority of reviewers may not notice that the conclusions of the paper are unsupported by its results.^[128]

Fake

There have been instances where peer review was claimed to be performed but in fact was not; this has been documented in some predatory open access journals (e.g., the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? affair) or in the case of sponsored Elsevier journals.^[129]

In November 2014, an article in Nature exposed that some academics were submitting fake contact details for recommended reviewers to journals, so that if the publisher contacted the recommended reviewer, they were the original author reviewing their own work under a fake name.^[130] The Committee on Publication Ethics issued a statement warning of the fraudulent practice.^[131] In March 2015, Biomed Central retracted 43 articles^[132] and Springer retracted 64 papers in 10 journals in August 2015.^[133] Tumor Biology journal is another example of peer review fraud.^[129]

Plagiarism{{anchor|Plagiarism}}

Reviewers generally lack access to raw data, but do see the full text of the manuscript, and are typically familiar with recent publications in the area. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism of prose than fraudulent data. A few cases of such textual plagiarism by historians, for instance, have been widely publicized.^[134]

On the scientific side, a poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health found 0.3% admitted faking data and 1.4% admitted plagiarism.^[135] Additionally, 4.7% of the same poll admitted to self-plagiarism or autoplagiarism, in which an author republishes the same material, data, or text, without citing their earlier work.^[135]{{clarify|reason=no direct connection to peer review in this info|date=January 2016}}

Abuse of inside information by reviewers

A related form of professional misconduct is a reviewer using the not-yet-published information from a manuscript or grant application for personal or professional gain. The frequency with which this happens is unknown, but the United States Office of Research Integrity has sanctioned reviewers who have been caught exploiting knowledge they gained as reviewers.{{citation needed|date=October 2015}}

A possible defense for authors against this form of misconduct on the part of reviewers is to pre-publish their work in the form of a preprint or technical report on a public system such as arXiv. The preprint can later be used to establish priority, although preprints violate the stated policies of some journals.{{citation needed|date=October 2015}}

Open access journals and peer review

Some critics of open access (OA) journals have argued that, compared to traditional subscription journals, open access journals might utilize substandard or less formal peer review practices, and, as a consequence, the quality of scientific work in such journals will suffer.^[136] In a study published in 2012, this hypothesis was tested by evaluating the relative "impact" (using citation counts) of articles published in open access and subscription journals, on the grounds that members of the scientific community would presumably be less likely to cite substandard work, and that citation counts could therefore act as one indicator of whether or not the journal format indeed impacted peer review and the quality of published scholarship.^[137] This study ultimately concluded that "OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges," and the authors consequently argue that "there is no reason for authors not to choose to publish in OA journals just because of the ‘OA’ label."

Examples

Improvement efforts

Efforts to make fundamental improvements have ebbed and flowed since the late 1970s when Rennie first systematically reviewed articles in thirty medical journals. According to Ana Marušić, "Nothing much has changed in 25 years". Mentorship has not been shown to have a positive effect. Worse, little evidence indicates that peer review as presently performed, improves the quality of published papers.^[146]

The journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, was founded by Stevan Harnad in 1978^[148] and modeled on Current Anthropology's open peer commentary feature.^[149] Psycoloquy was founded in 1990^[150] on the basis of the same feature, but this time implemented online.

In the summer of 2009, Kathleen Fitzpatrick explored open peer review and commentary in her book, Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. Throughout the 2000s academic journals based solely on the concept of open peer review were launched, such as Philica. {{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

Early era: 1996–2000

In 1996, the Journal of Interactive Media in Education launched using open peer review.^[151] Reviewers' names were made public, they were therefore accountable for their review, and their contribution was acknowledged. Authors had the right of reply, and other researchers had the chance to comment prior to publication. As of February 2013, the Journal of Interactive Media in Education stopped using open peer review.^[152]

In 1997, the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence was launched as an open access journal by the European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence. This journal used a two-stage review process. In the first stage, papers that passed a quick screen by the editors were immediately published on the Transaction's discussion website for the purpose of on-line public discussion during a period of at least three months, where the contributors' names were made public except in exceptional cases. At the end of the discussion period, the authors were invited to submit a revised version of the article, and anonymous referees decided whether the revised manuscript would be accepted to the journal or not, but without any option for the referees to propose further changes. The last issue of this journal appeared in 2001.{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

In 1999, the open access journal Journal of Medical Internet Research^[153] was launched, which from its inception decided to publish the names of the reviewers at the bottom of each published article. Also in 1999, the British Medical Journal moved to an open peer review system, revealing reviewers' identities to the authors but not the readers,^[172] and in 2000, the medical journals in the open access BMC series^[154] published by BioMed Central, launched using open peer review. As with the BMJ, the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. In addition, if the article is published the reports are made available online as part of the 'pre-publication history'.{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

Several other journals published by the BMJ Group allow optional open peer review,^[155] as does PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science.^[156] The BMJs Rapid Responses allows ongoing debate and criticism following publication.^[157]

Recent era: 2001–present

In June 2006, Nature launched an experiment in parallel open peer review: some articles that had been submitted to the regular anonymous process were also available online for open, identified public comment. The results were less than encouraging – only 5% of authors agreed to participate in the experiment, and only 54% of those articles received comments.^[159]^[160] The editors have suggested that researchers may have been too busy to take part and were reluctant to make their names public. The knowledge that articles were simultaneously being subjected to anonymous peer review may also have affected the uptake.

In February 2006, the journal Biology Direct was launched by BioMed Central, adding another alternative to the traditional model of peer review. If authors can find three members of the Editorial Board who will each return a report or will themselves solicit an external review, the article will be published. As with Philica, reviewers cannot suppress publication, but in contrast to Philica, no reviews are anonymous and no article is published without being reviewed. Authors have the opportunity to withdraw their article, to revise it in response to the reviews, or to publish it without revision. If the authors proceed with publication of their article despite critical comments, readers can clearly see any negative comments along with the names of the reviewers.^[161]{{third-party-inline|date=January 2016}}

In the social sciences, there have been experiments with wiki-style, signed peer reviews, for example in an issue of the Shakespeare Quarterly.^[162]

In 2010, the British Medical Journal began publishing signed reviewer's reports alongside accepted papers, after determining that telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted publicly did not significantly affect the quality of the reviews.^[65]

In 2011, Peerage of Science, and independent peer review service, was launched with several non-traditional approaches to academic peer review. Most prominently, these include the judging and scoring of the accuracy and justifiability of peer reviews, and concurrent usage of a single peer review round by several participating journals.{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}

Starting in 2013 with the launch of F1000Research, some publishers have combined open peer review with postpublication peer review by using a versioned article system. At F1000Research, articles are published before review, and invited peer review reports (and reviewer names) are published with the article as they come in.^[72] Author-revised versions of the article are then linked to the original. A similar postpublication review system with versioned articles is used by Science Open and The Winnower, both launched in 2014.^[73]^[74]

In 2014, Life implanted an open peer review system,^[163] under which the peer-review reports and authors’ responses are published as an integral part of the final version of each article.

Another form of "open peer review" is community-based pre-publication peer-review, where the review process is open for everybody to join.{{citation needed|date=November 2014}}

In an effort to address issues with the reproducibility of research results, some scholars are asking that authors agree to share their raw data as part of the peer review process.^[164] As far back as 1962, for example, a number of psychologists have attempted to obtain raw data sets from other researchers, with mixed results, in order to reanalyze them. A recent attempt resulted in only seven data sets out of fifty requests. The notion of obtaining, let alone requiring, open data as a condition of peer review remains controversial.^[165]

In popular culture

In 2017, the Higher School of Economics in Moscow unveiled a "Monument to an Anonymous Peer Reviewer". It takes the form of a large concrete cube, or dice, with "Accept", "Minor Changes", "Major Changes", "Revise and Resubmit" and "Reject" on its five visible sides. Sociologist Igor Chirikov, who devised the monument, said that while researchers have a love-hate relationship with peer review, peer reviewers nonetheless do valuable but mostly invisible work, and the monument is a tribute to them.^[166]

See also

References

1. ^¹{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VZ1axrolCpkC&pg=PA220|title=Rescuing Science from Politics|first=Rena |last=Steinzor |publisher=Cambridge University Press|date= July 24, 2006|isbn=978-0521855204|pages=304}}
2. ^Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 1995,82 pages, {{ISBN|0309119707}}
3. ^The Origin of the Scientific Journal and the Process of Peer Review House of Commons Select Committee Report
4. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, Qadri Y, Sarfare S, Schultz K, Splittgerber R, Stephenson J, Tower C, Walton RG, Zotov A | title = The ups and downs of peer review | journal = Advances in Physiology Education | volume = 31 | issue = 2 | pages = 145–52 | date = June 2007 | pmid = 17562902 | doi = 10.1152/advan.00104.2006 | quote = p. 145 – Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication. | displayauthors = etal }}
5. ^{{Cite news|url = http://www.biotechniques.com/BiotechniquesJournal/2015/January/From-the-Editor/biotechniques-356227.html |title=Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review |last=Blow |first = Nathan S. |date=January 2015 |work=BioTechniques |access-date= |via= |type=editorial |page=5 |volume=58 |issue=1 |doi=10.2144/000114242}}
6. ^{{cite news|title=Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review |department=From the Editor |work=BioTechniques |page=5 |date=January 2015 |volume=58 |issue=1 }}
7. ^¹{{cite journal |last1=Pontille |first1=David |last2=Torny |first2=Didier |title=From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review |journal=Human Studies |volume=38 |pages=57–79 |year=2014 |url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/CSI-ENSMP/hal-01143310v1|doi=10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z}}
8. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Csiszar A | title = Peer review: Troubled from the start | journal = Nature | volume = 532 | issue = 7599 | pages = 306–8 | date = April 2016 | pmid = 27111616 | doi = 10.1038/532306a | bibcode = 2016Natur.532..306C }}
9. ^{{cite journal |last=Kennefick |first=Daniel |title=Einstein versus the Physical Review |journal=Physics Today |volume=58 |issue=9 |pages=43–48 |date=September 2005|doi=10.1063/1.2117822|bibcode= 2005PhT....58i..43K }}
10. ^¹{{Cite journal|last=Baldwin|first=Melinda|date=2018-09-01|title=Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States|url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/700070|journal=Isis|volume=109|issue=3|pages=538–558|doi=10.1086/700070|issn=0021-1753}}
11. ^¹{{cite journal | vauthors = | title = Coping with peer rejection | journal = Nature | volume = 425 |issue=6959 |pages=645 |date=October 2003 |pmid=14562060 | doi = 10.1038/425645a |bibcode=2003Natur.425..645. }}
12. ^{{cite book|last1=Tan|first1=Meng H.|editor1-last=Markovac|editor1-first=Jasna|editor2-last=Kleinman|editor2-first=Molly|editor3-last=Englesbe|editor3-first=Michael|title=Medical and Scientific Publishing: Author, Editor, and Reviewer Perspectives|date=2018|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=978-0-12-809969-8|pages=55–68|chapter=Chapter 7: Peer review – Past, Present and Future}}
13. ^¹{{cite journal |first=Joanne |last=Gaudet |hdl=10393/31319 |title=Investigating journal peer review as scientific object of study:unabridged version – Part I |journal=UO Research |date=2014-07-16 }}{{self-published inline|date=January 2016}}
14. ^{{cite book |last=Gould |first=T.P.H. |year=2012 |title=Do We Still Need Peer Review? |publisher=The Scarecrow Press |isbn=9780810885745}}{{page needed|date=November 2018}}
15. ^{{cite journal |last=Biagioli |first=M. |title=From book censorship to academic peer review |journal=Emergences |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=11–45 |date=2002 |doi=10.1080/1045722022000003435}}
16. ^{{cite journal |last=Rip |first=A. |title=Commentary: Peer review is alive and well in the United States |journal=Science, Technology, and Human Values |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=82–86 |date=1985 |doi=10.1177/016224398501000310}}
17. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Rennie D, Flanagin A | title = Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses | journal = JAMA | volume = 319 | issue = 4 | pages = 350–353 | date = January 2018 | pmid = 29362775 | doi = 10.1001/jama.2017.20606 }}
18. ^{{cite journal |last=Hirschauer |first=S. |title=Editorial judgements: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review |journal=Social Studies of Science |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=71–103 |date=2010 |doi=10.1177/0306312709335405|bibcode=1989SoStS..19..127L }}
19. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/mgmt/briefing_papers/peer_review_panels.pdf |title=Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process |publisher=USDA Forest Service |date=February 6, 2006 |access-date=October 4, 2010}}
20. ^{{cite journal |author=Sims Gerald K. |year=1989 |quote=The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals |title=Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool |url= https://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/jnrlse/pdfs/jnr018/018-02-0105.pdf |journal=Journal of Agronomic Education |volume=18 |pages=105–108 }}
21. ^{{cite web |title=AAUP Membership Benefits and Eligibility |publisher=Association of American University Presses |url=http://www.aaupnet.org/aaup-members/becoming-a-member/eligibility-requirements | access-date=August 3, 2016}}
22. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/editors/peer-review/32888|title=Peer Review|website=www.springer.com|access-date=2018-04-17}}
23. ^{{Cite news|url=https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-peer-review-27797|title=Explainer: what is peer review?|last=Spicer|first=Andre|work=The Conversation|access-date=2018-04-17}}
24. ^{{Cite journal|last=Stolowy|first=Herve|title=Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review|journal=European Accounting Review|volume=26|issue=3|pages=411–418|via=|doi=10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360|year=2017}}
25. ^{{Cite web|url=http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/dev4peace/state-development-journals-2017-quality-acceptance-rates-and-review-times|title=The State of Development Journals 2017: Quality, Acceptance Rates, and Review Times|last=McKenzie|first=David|date=2017-02-21|website=Impact Evaluations|access-date=2018-04-17}}
26. ^{{Cite journal|last=|first=|date=2017|title=Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2016|journal=American Psychologist|volume=72|issue=5|pages=499–500|via=|doi=10.1037/amp0000172|pmid=28726464}}
27. ^{{Cite journal|last=Insights|first=Editage|date=2013-04-11|title=Peer review process and editorial decision making at journals|url=https://www.editage.com/insights/peer-review-process-and-editorial-decision-making-at-journals|journal=Editage Insights(04-11-2013)}}
28. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-accepted-your-article|title=‘8 reasons I accepted your article'|last=Elsevier|work=Elsevier Connect|access-date=2018-04-17}}
29. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE | title = How to review a paper | journal = Advances in Physiology Education | volume = 27 | issue = 1–4 | pages = 47–52 | date = December 2003 | pmid = 12760840 | doi = 10.1152/advan.00057.2002 }}
30. ^¹{{Cite web|url=https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html|title=Peer-review policy : authors & referees @ npg|website=www.nature.com|access-date=2018-04-17}}
31. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/|title=Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals.|publisher=ICMJE|date=2014-12-16|access-date=2015-06-26}}
32. ^{{Cite news|url=https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/what-should-editors-do-when-referees-disagree/|title=What should editors do when referees disagree?|date=2014-09-02|work=Dynamic Ecology|access-date=2018-04-17}}
33. ^{{cite journal |last=Coleman |first=Andrew M. |date=1979 |title=Editorial role in author-referee disagreements |url=https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/npb/people/amc/articles-pdfs/editrole.pdf |journal=Bulletin of the British Psychological Society |volume=32 |pages=390–1 }}
34. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/h0037631 |last1=Scott |first1=W. A. |year=1974 |title=Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |journal=American Psychologist |volume=29 |issue=9 |pages=698–702 }}
35. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Pless IB | title = When reviewers disagree | journal = Injury Prevention | volume = 12 | issue = 4 | pages = 211 | date = August 2006 | pmid = 16887940 | pmc = 2586794 | doi = 10.1136/ip.2006.090806 }}
36. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal-policies/guide-to-referees|title=Guide to referees |publisher=Nature Communications|access-date=2018-04-17}}
37. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.309.5743.1974 |pmid=16179438 |first1=David |last1=Grimm |year=2005 |title=Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published |journal=Science |volume=309 |issue=5743 |pages=1974 }}
38. ^{{Cite news|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2005/09/reviewers-can-help-get-your-paper-published|title=Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published|date=2005-09-23|work=Science {{!}} AAAS|access-date=2018-04-17}}
39. ^{{Cite news|url=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/12/journals-new-program-choose-reviewers-get-decision-days/|title=Journal’s new program: Choose your own reviewers – and get a decision in days|date=2016-12-12|work=Retraction Watch|access-date=2018-04-17}}
40. ^{{Cite news|url=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/24/eight-retractions-for-fake-reviews-leads-journal-to-suspend-author-nominations/|title=Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations|date=2015-12-24|work=Retraction Watch|access-date=2018-04-17}}
41. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Noble WS | title = Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers | journal = PLoS Computational Biology | volume = 13 | issue = 10 | pages = e1005730 | date = October 2017 | pmid = 29023444 | pmc = 5638205 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730 | bibcode = 2017PLSCB..13E5730N }}
42. ^{{Cite journal |author=Lawrence O'Gorman |title=The (Frustrating) State of Peer Review |journal=IAPR Newsletter |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=3–5 |date=January 2008 |url=http://iapr.org/docs/newsletter-2008-01.pdf }}
43. ^{{Cite journal |first1=Samuel M. |last1=Schwartz |first2=Donald W. |last2=Slater |first3=Fred P. |last3=Heydrick |first4=Gillian R. |last4=Woolett |title=A Report of the AIBS Peer-Review Process for the US Army's 1994 Breast Cancer Initiative |journal=BioScience |volume=45 |issue=8 |pages=558–563 |date=September 1995 |jstor=1312702 |doi=10.1093/bioscience/45.8.558|bibcode=1985BioSc..35..499W }}
44. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9 |title=The changing face of peer review |journal=Science Editing |volume=1 |pages=9–12 |year=2014 |last1=Hames |first1=Irene }}
45. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Satyanarayana K | title = Journal publishing: the changing landscape | journal = The Indian Journal of Medical Research | volume = 138 | issue = | pages = 4–7 | year = 2013 | pmid = 24056548 | pmc = 3767268 | doi = }}
46. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1087/20130406 |title=RUBRIQ: Tools, services, and software to improve peer review |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=265–268 |year=2013 |last1=Stemmle |first1=Laura |last2=Collier |first2=Keith }}
47. ^¹²{{cite journal | vauthors = Spier R | title = The history of the peer-review process | journal = Trends in Biotechnology | volume = 20 | issue = 8 | pages = 357–8 | date = August 2002 | pmid = 12127284 | doi = 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6 }}
48. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S0140525X00011201 |title=Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=197 |year=1982 |last1=Armstrong |first1=J. Scott |url=https://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/115 }}
49. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1002/for.3980010109 |title=Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors |journal=Journal of Forecasting |volume=1 |pages=83–104 |year=1982 |last1=Armstrong |first1=J. Scott |citeseerx=10.1.1.468.1453 }}
50. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.7264/N3542KVW |title=The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review |last1=Pontille |first1=David |last2=Torny |first2=Didier |url=https://adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-pontilletorny/ |year=2014 |publisher=University of Oregon Libraries }}
51. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature.2014.15564 |title=Journals weigh up double-blind peer review |journal=Nature |year=2014 |last1=Cressey |first1=Daniel }}
52. ^{{cite web |url=http://blogs.nature.com/actionpotential/2005/12/doubleblind_peer_review.html |title=Double-blind peer review? |first=Annette |last=Markus |date=28 Dec 2005 }}{{self-published inline|date=November 2018}}
53. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/451605b |pmid=18256621 |title=Working double-blind |journal=Nature |volume=451 |issue=7179 |pages=605–606 |year=2008 }}
54. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D | title = Peer review--the newcomers' perspective | journal = PLoS Biology | volume = 3 | issue = 9 | pages = e326 | date = September 2005 | pmid = 16149851 | pmc = 1201308 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326 }}
55. ^{{cite web | authorlink = | title = Policy on Referencing Data in and Archiving Data for AGU Publications | quote = The following policy has been adopted for AGU publications in order to ensure that they can effectively and efficiently perform an expanded role in making the underlying data for articles available to researchers now and in the future. | publisher = American Geophysical Union | year = 2012 | url = http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/policies/data_policy.shtml | access-date =2012-09-08}}* This policy was first adopted by the AGU Publications Committee in November 1993 and then revised March 1994, December 1995, October 1996.* See also AGU Data Policy by Bill Cook. April 4, 2012.
56. ^{{cite web | title = Data Management & Sharing Frequently Asked Questions | website = | publisher = National Science Foundation | date = November 30, 2010 | url = https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmpfaqs.jsp | access-date =2012-09-08}}
57. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1109/JPROC.2004.842761 |title=Data Grids, Digital Libraries, and Persistent Archives: An Integrated Approach to Sharing, Publishing, and Archiving Data |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |volume=93 |issue=3 |pages=578–588 |year=2005 |last1=Moore |first1=R.W. |last2=Rajasekar |first2=A. |last3=Wan |first3=M. }}
58. ^{{cite book |last1=Bingham |first1=Craig |chapter=Peer review and the ethics of internet publishing |chapterurl={{Google books|d_U4BjPtI7MC|page=85|plainurl=yes}} |editor1-first=Anne Hudson |editor1-last=Jones |editor2-first=Faith |editor2-last=McLellan |title=Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication |location=Baltimore |publisher=Johns Hopkins University |year=2000 |pages=85–111 |isbn=9780801863158 }}
59. ^¹{{cite journal | vauthors = Rothwell PM, Martyn CN | title = Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? | journal = Brain | volume = 123 | issue = 9 | pages = 1964–9 | date = September 2000 | pmid = 10960059 | doi = 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964 }}
60. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf |title=The Peer Review Process |access-date=4 January 2012}}
61. ^¹{{Cite journal |author=Alison McCook |title=Is Peer Review Broken? |journal=The Scientist |date=February 2006 |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23672/title/Is-Peer-Review-Broken-/}}
62. ^{{cite journal | doi = 10.1038/nature05005| title = Reviving a culture of scientific debate| journal = Nature| year = 2006| last1 = Koonin| first1 = Eugene}}
63. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R | title = Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial | journal = BMJ | volume = 318 | issue = 7175 | pages = 23–7 | date = January 1999 | pmid = 9872878 | pmc = 27670 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23 }}
64. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G | title = Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial | journal = The British Journal of Psychiatry | volume = 176 | issue = 1 | pages = 47–51 | date = January 2000 | pmid = 10789326 | doi = 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47 }}
65. ^¹²{{cite journal | vauthors = van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ | title = Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial | journal = BMJ | volume = 341 | pages = c5729 | date = November 2010 | pmid = 21081600 | pmc = 2982798 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.c5729 }}
66. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11510-0 |pmid=9708752 |title=The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study |journal=The Lancet |volume=352 |issue=9126 |pages=441–445 |year=1998 |last1=Bingham |first1=Craig M. |last2=Higgins |first2=Gail |last3=Coleman |first3=Ross |last4=Van Der Weyden |first4=Martin B. }}
67. ^{{Cite news|url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/18/stars-aligning-preprints/|title=The Stars Are Aligning for Preprints - The Scholarly Kitchen|date=2017-04-18|work=The Scholarly Kitchen|access-date=2018-05-19}}
68. ^{{Cite web|url=http://asapbio.org/preprint-info/biology-preprints-over-time|title=Biology preprints over time {{!}} ASAPbio|website=asapbio.org|access-date=2018-05-19}}
69. ^{{Cite web|url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01700198/document|title=Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review|last=Torny|first=Didier|date=2018}}
70. ^{{cite journal|vauthors=Slavov N|date=November 2015|title=Making the most of peer review|journal=eLife|volume=4|doi=10.7554/elife.12708|pmid=26559758|pmc=4641509}}
71. ^¹{{cite journal |vauthors=Pöschl U|year=2012|title=Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation |journal=Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience |volume=6 |issue= |page=33 |doi=10.3389/fncom.2012.00033 |pmid=22783183 |pmc=3389610 }}
72. ^¹{{Cite journal |author=Jeffrey Marlow |url=https://www.wired.com/2013/07/publish-first-ask-questions-later/ |title=Publish First, Ask Questions Later |journal=Wired |date=July 23, 2013|access-date=2015-01-13}}
73. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://blog.scienceopen.com/2014/12/not-so-secret-pppr-recipe/ |title=The recipe for our (not so) secret Post-Publication Peer Review sauce! |author=Elizabeth Allen |date=September 29, 2017 |orig-year=December 8, 2014 |website=ScienceOpen.com |access-date=2015-01-13}}
74. ^¹{{cite web |author=Philip Young |website=Open @ VT |url=https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/openvt/2013/12/04/the-winnower-an-interview-with-josh-nicholson/ |title=The Winnower: An Interview with Josh Nicholson |date=December 4, 2013 |access-date=2015-01-13}}
75. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.stm-publishing.com/f1000research-peer-reviewed-articles-now-visible-on-pubmed-and-pubmed-central/ |title=F1000Research peer-reviewed articles now visible on PubMed and PubMed Central |date=December 12, 2013 |publisher=STM Publishing News |access-date=2015-01-13}}
76. ^{{cite book |page=36 |chapter=Intentional Error |title=Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research |first=Robert |last=Rosenthal |year=1966 }}
77. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Newcombe RG | title = Towards a reduction in publication bias | journal = British Medical Journal | volume = 295 | issue = 6599 | pages = 656–9 | date = September 1987 | pmid = 3117278 | pmc = 1257777 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.295.6599.656 }}
78. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.635 |title=Improving what is published: A model in search of an editor |journal=American Psychologist |volume=43 |issue=8 |pages=635–642 |year=1988 |last1=Kupfersmid |first1=Joel }}
79. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.331.7517.638-a |pmid=16166149 |pmc=1215604 |title=Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: Here's a proposal for editors that may help reduce publication bias |journal=BMJ |volume=331 |issue=7517 |pages=638.2 |year=2005 |last1=Glymour |first1=M Maria |last2=Kawachi |first2=Ichiro }}
80. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023 |pmid=23845183 |title=A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias |journal=Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |volume=66 |issue=9 |pages=946–947 |year=2013 |last1=Smulders |first1=Yvo M. }}
81. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF01173636 |title=Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system |journal=Cognitive Therapy and Research |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=161–175 |year=1977 |last1=Mahoney |first1=Michael J. }}
82. ^"Conclusion-Blind Review", 16 January 2007; "Result Blind Review", 6 November 2010; "Who Wants Unbiased Journals?", 27 April 2012
83. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/00031305.1970.10478884 |title=A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences |journal=The American Statistician |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=16–19 |year=1970 |last1=Walster |first1=G. William |last2=Cleary |first2=T. Anne }}
84. ^¹²{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3 |title=Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation |journal=Science and Engineering Ethics |volume=3 |pages=63–84 |year=1997 |last1=Armstrong |first1=J. Scott |citeseerx=10.1.1.37.5054 }}
85. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/ije/dym168 |pmid=17875575 |title=Quality in epidemiological research: Should we be submitting papers before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis-generating research? |journal=International Journal of Epidemiology |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=940–943 |year=2007 |last1=Lawlor |first1=D. A. }}
86. ^"Academic reforms: A four-part proposal", Brendan Nyhan, 16 April 2012
87. ^"More on pre-accepted academic articles", 27 April 2012
88. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S1049096515000463 |title=Increasing the Credibility of Political Science Research: A Proposal for Journal Reforms |journal=Ps: Political Science & Politics |volume=48 |pages=78–83 |year=2015 |last1=Nyhan |first1=Brendan }}
89. ^"A Proposal for Increasing Evaluation in CS Research Publication", David Karger, 17 February 2011
90. ^"It's the incentive structure, people! Why science reform must come from the granting agencies.", Chris Said, 17 April 2012
91. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Chambers CD | title = Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex | journal = Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior | volume = 49 | issue = 3 | pages = 609–10 | date = March 2013 | pmid = 23347556 | doi = 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016 | url = http://orca.cf.ac.uk/45177/1/Chambers_Cortex_2013b_GreenOA.pdf }}
92. ^"Read it, understand it, believe it, use it: Principles and proposals for a more credible research publication", Green et al 2013, citing "Protocol Review"
93. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01131-9 |title=Protocol review at the Lancet: 1997–2015 |journal=The Lancet |volume=386 |issue=10012 |pages=2456–2457 |year=2015 |last1=The Editors Of The Lancet }}
94. ^{{Cite journal|doi = 10.1038/s41562-016-0034|title = Promoting reproducibility with registered reports|journal = Nature Human Behaviour|volume = 1|pages = 0034|year = 2017}}
95. ^https://www.ejp-blog.com/blog/2017/2/3/streamlined-review-and-registered-reports-coming-soon{{full citation needed|date=November 2018}}
96. ^{{cite journal |first1=J. Scott |last1=Armstrong |first2=Estella Bee |last2=Dagum |first3=Robert |last3=Fildes |first4=Spyros |last4=Makridakis |year=1986 |title=Publishing Standards for Research on Forecasting (editorial) |journal=Marketing Papers |url=https://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/86 }}
97. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/0169-2070(95)00626-5 |title=Publication of research on controversial topics: The early acceptance procedure |journal=International Journal of Forecasting |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=299–302 |year=1996 |last1=Armstrong |first1=J.Scott |url=https://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/106 }}
98. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/014662168901300101 |title=An Experiment in Publication: Advance Publication Review |journal=Applied Psychological Measurement |volume=13 |pages=1–7 |year=1989 |last1=Weiss |first1=David J. }}
99. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100 |pmid=19506169 |title=Editorial Policies and Publication Bias |journal=Archives of Internal Medicine |volume=169 |issue=11 |pages=1022–3 |year=2009 |last1=Sridharan |first1=Lakshmi |last2=Greenland |first2=Philip }}
100. ^[https://osf.io/8mpji/wiki/home/ "Registered Reports"], OSF
101. ^[https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing "Registered Reports: A step change in scientific publishing; Professor Chris Chambers, Registered Reports Editor of the Elsevier journal Cortex and one of the concept's founders, on how the initiative combats publication bias"], Chambers, 13 November 2014
102. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4 |title=Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond |journal=Aims Neuroscience |volume=1 |pages=4–17 |year=2014 |last1=d. Chambers |first1=Christopher |last2=Feredoes |first2=Eva |last3=d. Muthukumaraswamy |first3=Suresh |last4=j. Etchells |first4=Peter }}
103. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1027/1864-9335/a000192 |title=Registered Reports |journal=Social Psychology |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=137–141 |year=2014 |last1=Nosek |first1=Brian A. |last2=Lakens |first2=Daniël }}
104. ^"Register your study as a new publication option", Science, 15 December 2015
105. ^[https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/may/20/psychology-registration-revolution "Psychology's 'registration revolution': Moves to uphold transparency are not only making psychology more scientific - they are harnessing our knowledge of the mind to strengthen science"], Guardian, 20 May 2014
106. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0010414016655539 |title=Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study |journal=Comparative Political Studies |volume=49 |issue=13 |pages=1667–1703 |year=2016 |last1=Findley |first1=Michael G. |last2=Jensen |first2=Nathan M. |last3=Malesky |first3=Edmund J. |last4=Pepinsky |first4=Thomas B. }}
107. ^¹{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0963662516649806 |pmid=27229853 |title=The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review |journal=Public Understanding of Science |volume=26 |issue=8 |pages=937–952 |year=2017 |last1=Yeo |first1=Sara K. |last2=Liang |first2=Xuan |last3=Brossard |first3=Dominique |last4=Rose |first4=Kathleen M. |last5=Korzekwa |first5=Kaine |last6=Scheufele |first6=Dietram A. |last7=Xenos |first7=Michael A. }}
108. ^Redfield, Rosemary (4 December 2010). "Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims)". RR Research blog]. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
109. ^Zimmer, Carl (7 December 2010). "Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life". Slate. Retrieved 7 December 2010.
110. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ | title = Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells | journal = Science | volume = 337 | issue = 6093 | pages = 470–3 | date = July 2012 | pmid = 22773140 | doi = 10.1126/science.1219861 | pmc = 3845625 | arxiv = 1201.6643 | bibcode = 2012Sci...337..470R }}
111. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1001/jama.289.11.1438 |title=Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication |journal=JAMA |volume=289 |issue=11 |pages=1438 |year=2003 |last1=Rennie |first1=Drummond |last2=Flanagin |first2=Annette |last3=Smith |first3=Richard |last4=Smith |first4=Jane }}
112. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Horton R | title = Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up | journal = The Medical Journal of Australia | volume = 172 | issue = 4 | pages = 148–9 | date = February 2000 | pmid = 10772580 | doi = | url = http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html }}
113. ^{{cite journal|first=James V. |last=Bradley |year=1981 |title=Pernicious Publication Practices |journal=Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society |volume=18 |pages=31–34 |doi=10.3758/bf03333562}}
114. ^"British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: August 16, 2004
115. ^{{cite web| last =Higgs| first =Robert| title =Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth| publisher =Independent Institute| date =May 7, 2007| url =http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963| access-date =April 9, 2012}}
116. ^{{cite book |first=Brian |last=Martin |author1-link=Brian Martin (social scientist) |chapter-url=http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss |chapter=Suppression Stories |year=1997 |title=Fund for Intellectual Dissent |isbn= 978-0-646-30349-9 |publisher=Fund for Intellectual Dissent |location=Wollongong}}
117. ^{{Cite journal |last1=Campanario |first1=Juan Miguel |last2=Martin |first2=Brian |title=Challenging dominant physics paradigms |journal=Journal of Scientific Exploration |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=421–38 |date=Fall 2004 |url=http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/04jse.html |bibcode=2008atcr.book...11C }}
118. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C | title = Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science | journal = Management Science | volume = 62 | issue = 10 | pages = 2765–2783 | date = October 2016 | pmid = 27746512 | doi = 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285 | pmc = 5062254 }}
119. ^{{Cite journal|last=van den Besselaar|first=Peter|last2=Sandström|first2=Ulf|last3=Schiffbaenker|first3=Hélène|date=October 2018|title=Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x|journal=Scientometrics|volume=117|issue=1|pages=313–329|doi=10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x|issn=0138-9130|pmc=6132964|pmid=30220747}}
120. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Osmond DH | title = Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review | journal = Journal of Neurobiology | volume = 14 | issue = 2 | pages = 95–112 | date = March 1983 | pmid = 6842193 | doi = 10.1002/neu.480140202 | url = http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev1.htm | quote = ... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own }}
121. ^{{cite journal | first1=Francisco |last1=Grimaldo |first2=Mario |last2=Paolucci |title=A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review |journal=Advances in Complex Systems |date=14 March 2013 |bibcode= 2005AdCS....8...15L |doi=10.1142/S0219525913500045 |volume=16 |issue=7 |pages=1350004}}
122. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ | title = Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors | journal = Trends in Ecology & Evolution | volume = 23 | issue = 1 | pages = 4–6 | date = January 2008 | pmid = 17963996 | doi = 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 }}
123. ^{{cite news |first=Sophie |last1=Petit-Zeman |url=https://www.theguardian.com/print/0,3858,4583809-111019,00.html |title=Trial by peers comes up short |newspaper=The Guardian |date=January 16, 2003}}
124. ^{{cite journal |first=H. |last=Fang |title=Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly |journal=Scientometrics |volume=87|number=2 |pages=293–301 |year=2011 |doi=10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4}}
125. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1087/095315102760319206 |title=The peer-review process |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=247–258 |year=2002 |last1=Rowland |first1=Fytton }}
126. ^{{cite web |title=Reviewing the "Letter-to-editor" section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000–2004 |author=Afifi, M |publisher=Bulletin of the World Health Organization |url=http://www.who.int/bulletin/bulletin_board/84/letters/en/index.html}}
127. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature05007 |title=Increasing accountability |journal=Nature |year=2006 |last1=Lee |first1=Kirby }}
128. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML | title = Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance | journal = Annals of Emergency Medicine | volume = 32 | issue = 3 Pt 1 | pages = 310–7 | date = September 1998 | pmid = 9737492 | doi = 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X }}
129. ^¹[https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/ A case of peer review fraud in Tumor Biology papers (Retrieved April 25, 2017)]
130. ^¹{{cite journal | vauthors = Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I | title = Publishing: The peer-review scam | journal = Nature | volume = 515 | issue = 7528 | pages = 480–2 | date = November 2014 | pmid = 25428481 | doi = 10.1038/515480a | bibcode = 2014Natur.515..480F }}
131. ^{{cite web|url=http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriate-manipulation-peer-review-processes|title=COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes|work=publicationethics.org}}
132. ^{{cite web|url=http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/|title=Inappropriate manipulation of peer review|work=BioMed Central blog|date=2015-03-26}}
133. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature.2015.18202 |title=Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions |journal=Nature |year=2015 |last1=Callaway |first1=Ewen }}
134. ^{{cite web |url=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1081 |website=History News Network |title=Historians on the Hot Seat |date=April 23, 2010 }}
135. ^¹{{cite news |last1=Weiss |first1=Rick |date=June 9, 2005 |title=Many scientists admit to misconduct: Degrees of deception vary in poll |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html }}
136. ^{{cite web |last1=Suber |first1=Peter |title=Will open access undermine peer review? |work=SPARC Open Access Newsletter |issue=113 |date=September 2, 2007 |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4322578/suber_peer.html }}{{unreliable source?|date=November 2018}}
137. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1186/1741-7015-10-73 |pmid=22805105 |pmc=3398850 |title=Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=10 |pages=73 |year=2012 |last1=Björk |first1=Bo-Christer |last2=Solomon |first2=David }}
138. ^{{cite book |last=Michaels |first1=David |chapter=Politicizing Peer Review: Scientific Perspective | editor1-last=Wagner |editor1-first=Wendy |editor2-first=Rena |editor2-last=Steinzor |title=Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |page=224 |isbn=978-0-521-85520-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VZ1axrolCpkC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224}}
139. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.3354/cr023089 |title=Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years |journal=Climate Research |volume=23 |pages=89–110 |year=2003 |last1=Soon |first1=W. |last2=Baliunas |first2=S. }}
140. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Tai MM | title = A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves | journal = Diabetes Care | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 152–4 | date = February 1994 | pmid = 8137688 | doi = 10.2337/diacare.17.2.152 }}
141. ^{{cite magazine |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/11/10/apparently-calculus-was-invented-in-1994/ |title=Apparently, Calculus Was Invented In 1994 |first=Alex |last=Knapp |year=2011 |magazine=Forbes}}
142. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~wp/videa.html |title=Beware of VIDEA! |last=Purgathofer |first=Werner |website=tuwien.ac.at |publisher=Technical University of Vienna |access-date=April 29, 2014}}
143. ^{{cite web|author=Jackson, A.|publisher=Australian Veterinary Association|title=Peer review – loopholes, hackers and scams|url=http://www.ava.com.au/13342|access-date=April 28, 2015}}
144. ^{{cite journal | last1 = Dougherty | first1 = M. V. | last2 = Harsting | first2 = P. | last3 = Friedman | first3 = R. | year = 2009 | title = 40 Cases of Plagiarism | journal = Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale | volume = 51 | issue = | pages = 350–91 |url=http://www.nnrh.dk/NNRH-hp/40.Cases.of.Plagiarism.pdf }}
145. ^{{cite journal | last1 = Dougherty | first1 = M. V. | year = 2017 | title = Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current-Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy | url = | journal = Metaphilosophy | volume = 48 | issue = 3| pages = 258–83 | doi=10.1111/meta.12241 }}
146. ^¹{{cite journal | vauthors = Couzin-Frankel J | title = Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study | journal = Science | volume = 341 | issue = 6152 | pages = 1331 | date = September 2013 | pmid = 24052283 | pmc = | doi = 10.1126/science.341.6152.1331 }}
147. ^{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/950119/tax.shtml |title=Obituary: Sol Tax, Anthropology |website= |access-date=2010-10-22}}
148. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S0140525X00059045 |title=Editorial |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=1 |pages=1 |year=1978 }}
149. ^New Scientist, 20 March 1980, [https://books.google.com/books?id=_qVe8jMDAB4C&pg=PA945 p. 945]
150. ^{{cite journal |url=http://cogprints.org/1580/ |title=Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge |author=Stevan Harnad |journal=Public-Access Computer Systems Review |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=39–53 |year=1991 |access-date=2010-10-22}}
151. ^http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/about.html#lifecycle{{dead link|date=November 2018}}
152. ^{{cite web|url=http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess|title=Journal of Interactive Media in Education|work=open.ac.uk}}
153. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.jmir.org/ |title=JMIR Home |publisher=Jmir.org |access-date=4 January 2012}}
154. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/bmcseries |title=BMC series |publisher=Biomedcentral.com |access-date=4 January 2012}}
155. ^¹{{cite journal | vauthors = Smith R | title = Opening up BMJ peer review | journal = BMJ | volume = 318 | issue = 7175 | pages = 4–5 | date = January 1999 | pmid = 9872861 | pmc = 1114535 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4 }}
156. ^{{Cite journal|url=http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/reviewer_guidelines.php#anonymity |title=PLoS Medicine: A Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access Journal |journal=PLOS Medicine |volume=3 |issue=11 |pages=e442 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442 |pmid=17132052 |pmc=1664601 |date=27 March 2009 |access-date=4 January 2012|last1=Mathers |first1=Colin D |last2=Loncar |first2=Dejan }}
157. ^{{cite journal | vauthors = Delamothe T, Smith R | title = Twenty thousand conversations | journal = BMJ | volume = 324 | issue = 7347 | pages = 1171–2 | date = May 2002 | pmid = 12016170 | pmc = 1123149 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1171 }}
158. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/news_acp_jcr2007_attachment.pdf |date=2007 |title=Impact Factor Trend Graph: ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS |work=Journal Citation Reports}}{{unreliable source?|date=November 2018}}
159. ^{{cite journal |title=Overview: Nature's peer review trial |date=December 2006 |journal=Nature |doi=10.1038/nature05535 }}
160. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/444971b |pmid=17183274 |title=Peer review and fraud |journal=Nature |volume=444 |issue=7122 |pages=971–972 |year=2006 }}
161. ^{{cite web | url=http://www.biology-direct.com/info/about/ | title=Aims and scope |work=Biology Direct}}
162. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?_r=1&ref=arts |work=The New York Times |title=For Scholars, Web Changes Sacred Rite of Peer Review |first=Patricia |last=Cohen |date=August 23, 2010}}
163. ^{{Cite journal |title= Editorial|journal= Life|volume= 4|issue= 2|pages= 225–226|doi= 10.3390/life4020225|pmid= 25370195|pmc= 4187159|year= 2014|last1= Rampelotto|first1= Pabulo}}
164. ^{{cite web |title=The PRO Initiative for Open Science |url=https://opennessinitiative.org/ |website=Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative |accessdate=15 September 2018|date=2014-09-13 }}
165. ^{{cite journal |last1=Witkowski |first1=Tomasz |authorlink1=Tomasz Witkowski |title=A Scientist Pushes Psychology Journals toward Open Data |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=6–7 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180915205014/https://forbiddenpsychology.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/a-scientist-pushes-psychology-journals-toward-open-data/}}
166. ^{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22060 |title=Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow |journal=Nature |year=2017 |last1=Schiermeier |first1=Quirin }}