The ups and downs of peer review.

@article{Benos2007TheUA,
  title={The ups and downs of peer review.},
  author={D. Benos and E. Bashari and J. M. Chaves and A. Gaggar and Niren Kapoor and M. Lafrance and R. Mans and D. Mayhew and S. McGowan and Abigail M Polter and Yawar J. Qadri and S. Sarfare and K. Schultz and R. Splittgerber and J. Stephenson and Cristy Tower and R. G. Walton and A. Zotov},
  journal={Advances in physiology education},
  year={2007},
  volume={31 2},
  pages={
          145-52
        }
}
  • D. Benos, E. Bashari, +15 authors A. Zotov
  • Published 2007
  • Medicine, Psychology
  • Advances in physiology education
  • This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will… CONTINUE READING

    Topics from this paper.

    Emerging trends in peer review—a survey
    • 82
    • PDF
    Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication
    • 190
    • PDF
    Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors
    • 42
    The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
    • 21

    References

    Publications referenced by this paper.
    SHOWING 1-10 OF 90 REFERENCES
    The evolution of editorial peer review.
    • 242
    Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.
    • 220
    Peer review in biomedical publication.
    • 235
    Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.
    • 198
    How to review a paper.
    • 141
    • PDF
    Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation
    • 160
    • PDF
    The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
    • 275
    • Highly Influential