Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals

@article{Thomas2018CurrentCR,
  title={Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals},
  author={Sandra P. Thomas},
  journal={Issues in Mental Health Nursing},
  year={2018},
  volume={39},
  pages={101 - 99}
}
Andrew Preston, writing recently for Scientific American (2017), predicted major changes in the traditional, centuries-old, peer review process in scholarly journals. He argues that the process has to change, given the sheer volume of manuscripts being produced in the 21st century scientific community (2 million articles being published every year). I can attest to his point that editors scramble to find qualified reviewers for the everincreasing barrage of manuscripts. I agree that those… Expand

Topics from this paper

The state of the art in peer review
TLDR
The current ebb and flow around changes to peer review is summarized and its role in a modern digital research and communications infrastructure is considered and why uptake of new models of peer review appears to have been so low is suggested. Expand
Unethical practices within medical research and publication – An exploratory study
The data produced by the scientific community impacts on academia, clinicians, and the general public; therefore, the scientific community and other regulatory bodies have been focussing on ethicalExpand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 17 REFERENCES
Publishing: The peer-review scam
TLDR
A journal editor was puzzled by the reviews for manuscripts by one author — Hyung-In Moon, a medicinal-plant researcher then at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, South Korea, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. Expand
Bias Among Peer Reviewers.
Bias Among Peer Reviewers To the Editor The theme issue on conflict of interest (COI) examined many facets of the topic but one aspect relevant to medical publications was not raised—the intellectualExpand
Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
TLDR
Manuscript reviews could be improved by increasing the consistency of numeric ratings, narrative comments, and recommendations regarding disposition of the manuscripts, and the results of this study reaffirm the worth of the peer review approach. Expand
Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
TLDR
The majority of nurse editors reported that blinding was important in peer review, to maintain objectivity and avoid negative personal or professional consequences, and the minority who saw potential benefits of open review valued increased transparency in the reviewing and editorial decision-making process. Expand
Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly journals.
  • Sandra P. Thomas
  • Medicine, Sociology
  • Journal of professional nursing : official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing
  • 2011
TLDR
In this article, literature from a wide range of nursing and nonnursing journals was examined to provide an overview of the conceptual debates and the empirical evidence about the peer review process in scholarly journals. Expand
Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
TLDR
This project created a continuous quality improvement process to assess the narrative portion of 464 reviews of 203 manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research from August 2006-July 2007 and found quality was better for technical rather than background aspects of a manuscript. Expand
Addressing Bias and Conflict of Interest Among Biomedical Researchers.
TLDR
Research bias is a systematic error or deviation from the truth in results or inferences that means biased studies will have systematically different effect estimates than studies that are not biased. Expand
Health Psychology's new (old) peer-review policy.
  • K. Freedland
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association
  • 2017
TLDR
The rationale for the revised peer-review policy is explained and authors are neither being asked nor allowed to de-identify the manuscripts that they submit to this journal. Expand
In Reply.
  • D. Novis
  • Medicine
  • Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine
  • 2016
TLDR
The existence of the Cinderella effect is called into question by proposing that all of the evidence cited in support of it can be explained away as products of a “reporting bias” such that abusive behaviour by stepparents is more likely to be detected and recorded than identical abuse behaviour by genetic parents. Expand
Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS-- According to three studies presented here last week at the Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, either suggesting or excluding reviewers canExpand
...
1
2
...