Peer-to-peer

William Arms

Online publications have several ways to give themselves a good name.

Trust and reputation are fundamental to scholarly publishing. The web provides tantalizing new ways to publish, but can these win the trust that is crucial to scientific acceptance? Peer review is the traditional way of building trust, but it is slow and expensive; some topics are difficult to review and reviewers miss mistakes. What alternatives do authors have?

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2006 | Category: 3. Ethics | Permalink

Dale Benos

Does a digital workflow make it easier to detect ethical breeches in peer review?

The Internet has changed everything. You can be sitting at your desk in Birmingham, Alabama, while having a conversation in real time with a colleague in Birmingham, United Kingdom, exchanging not only words and ideas, but also photographs, data sets and manuscripts. The Internet has also changed the way science is done, particularly when it comes to publication. Manuscripts are now submitted, reviewed and authors notified electronically. But although the efficiency and speed of the peer-review process has increased, a set of attendant issues has arisen.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 20, 2006 | Category: 3. Ethics | Permalink

Elizabeth Wager

Analysing the purpose of peer review.

Most people accept that peer review is enormously valuable and should be maintained and protected, but few agree on what purpose it serves. Science publishing, even at its simplest, involves complex interactions between researchers (authors), journal editors, reviewers and readers. It is a subtle form of human behaviour that could furnish the raw material for dozens of sociology theses. And when academic endeavour gets mixed up with commercial interests, things get even more complicated.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 14, 2006 | Category: 3. Ethics | Permalink

Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero

What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 05, 2006 | Category: 3. Ethics | Permalink