The peer‐review process

@article{Rowland2002ThePP,
  title={The peer‐review process},
  author={F. Rowland},
  journal={Learned Publishing},
  year={2002},
  volume={15}
}
  • F. Rowland
  • Published 2002
  • Computer Science
  • Learned Publishing
  • The recent literature about peer review of scholarly articles is reviewed, with particular emphasis on the cost of the peer‐review process. Possible impacts of electronic scholarly publishing upon peer reviewing are discussed. Opinion among academics in their roles as authors, editors and referees seems likely to insist upon preservation of a pre‐publication refereeing system in most disciplines. As the administration of any such system seems to have a cost of about $400 per published article… CONTINUE READING

    Topics from this paper.

    The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature
    • 52
    • Highly Influenced
    The true costs of scholarly journal publishing
    • 43
    Decoupling the scholarly journal
    • 63
    • PDF
    The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era
    • 380
    • PDF
    Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication
    • 3
    Examining JAC: An Analysis of the Scholarly Progression of the Journal of Applied Communications
    • 8
    • Highly Influenced
    The Peer Review Process: An Expanded Role for Repositories

    References

    Publications referenced by this paper.
    SHOWING 1-10 OF 218 REFERENCES
    Implementing peer review on the net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals
    • 190
    • Highly Influential
    The truth about peer review
    • 23
    • Highly Influential
    The evaluation of peer‐review quality
    • 19
    Scholarly Publishing, Peer Review and the Internet
    • 64
    • PDF
    Trends in Scientific Scholarly Journal Publishing in the United States
    • 103
    A critical examination of the peer review process
    • 12
    • Highly Influential
    The invisible hand of peer review
    • 129
    • Highly Influential
    Opening up BMJ peer review
    • 151