Opening peer-review: the democracy of science.
作者信息
Shanahan Daniel R, Olsen Bjorn R
机构信息
BioMed Central 6th Floor, 236 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB, UK.
出版信息
J Negat Results Biomed. 2014 Jan 24;13:2. doi: 10.1186/1477-5751-13-2.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Opening peer-review: the democracy of science.
J Negat Results Biomed. 2014 Jan 24;13:2. doi: 10.1186/1477-5751-13-2.
2
Open peer review: a route to democracy.
J R Soc Med. 2007 Jan;100(1):9. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.100.1.9-a.
3
Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
4
John Whitridge Williams' contribution to democracy abroad. (The fetus treated as a patient).
Ceska Gynekol. 1999 Apr;64(2):118-25.
5
Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2012 Oct;33(5):359-76. doi: 10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1.
6
NCB demography--democracy?
Nat Cell Biol. 2003 Nov;5(11):937. doi: 10.1038/ncb1103-937.
7
Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.
J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Nov;29(11):1450-2. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450. Epub 2014 Nov 4.
8
[The evaluation of science and peer review: past and present].
Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2000 Mar-Jun;7(1):93-116. doi: 10.1590/s0104-59702000000200005.
9
Is Peer Review a Hindrance to Good Science or a Gatekeeper Against Bad Science?
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Apr;79(4):745-747. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.11.033. Epub 2020 Dec 5.
10
Peer review, science, young investigators feelings and frustrations.
Acta Cir Bras. 2011 Feb;26(1):77-8. doi: 10.1590/s0102-86502011000100014.
引用本文的文献
1
Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2025 Aug 14. doi: 10.1007/s00210-025-04486-0.
2
Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Jun 20;20(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00867-6.
3
Grant application review: the case of transparency.
PLoS Biol. 2014 Dec 2;12(12):e1002010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010. eCollection 2014 Dec.
4
Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014 Oct 15;24(3):321-8. doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.034. eCollection 2014.
本文引用的文献
1
Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 29;5(9):e008707. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707.
2
Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Jul 5;6:33. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. eCollection 2012.
3
End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.
Nature. 2011 Apr 28;472(7344):391. doi: 10.1038/472391a.
4
Is open peer review the fairest system? No.
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c6425. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6425.
5
Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes.
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c6424. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6424.
6
Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts?
J Biol. 2009;8(3):24. doi: 10.1186/jbiol125. Epub 2009 Mar 9.
7
Peer review in PLoS Medicine.
PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e58. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040058.
8
Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2762-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.
9
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
Zotero 插件