This is a sloide
Critique of Peer Review, continuedRichard Smiths critique is in
line with common critiques of peer review:Reviewers make
errorsReviewers are biasedReviewers are be too conservativePeer
review does not catch plagarism or falsificationPeer review is too
slow
New OpportunitiesElectronic publishing and creative new
publishing models are providing new opportunities:to make review
processes fairerto make publication fasterto make research
available to more peopleto enhance and transform scholarly
discourseto address some of the longstanding critiques of peer
review
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Journal
Two-stage publication model is intended to: make peer review
processes transparentallow articles to be published quickly
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Journal
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Journal
Implications for LibrariansUnderstanding peer review processes
is necessary in order to assist scholars in making successful
transitions to new models of publishing
ConclusionPeer review, or expert review is about balancing one
expert opinion against another. The challenge is not whether peer
review is an essential aspect of scholarship because there is no
alternative to having experts look at things and make judgments.
Sir Mark Walport, Director, Wellcome Trust
ReferencesBurnham, J.C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer
review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10),
1323-1329.
DeMaria, A. (2010). Editors page - peer review: the weakest
link. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 55 ,
1161-1162.
Ghazoul, J. (2011). Editorial: reviewing peer review.
Biotropica, 43(1), 1-2.
Hernon, P. and Schwartz, C. (2006). Editorial: peer review
revisited. Library & Information Science Research, 28, 1-3.
Horton, R. (2011, February 9). Peer review: written evidence
submitted by Richard Horton (PR 02). UK Parliament Website.
Retrieved June 11, 2011 from
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m02.htm
Hurd, J.M. (1996). Information technology: catalyst for change
in scientific communication. Unpublished paper presented at the
17th Annual International Association of Scientific and
Technological University Libraries, Irvine, CA. Retrieved June 12,
2011 from:
www.iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/1996/hurd.doc
References, continuedKelly, M.J. (2011, February 25). Peer review:
written evidence submitted by Professor Michael J Kelly FRS FREng
(PR 09). UK Parliament Website. Retrieved from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m09.htm
Knoll, E. (1990). The communities of scientists and journal peer
review. Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10),
1330-1332.
Morrison, H. (2011, January 5). PLoS ONE: now the worlds largest
journal? The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics. Retrieved June
11, 2011 from:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/01/plos-one-now-worlds-largest-journal.html
Morrison, H. G. (2009). Scholarly communication for librarians.
Oxford: Chandos.
Mulligan, A. & Raphael, E. (2010). Peer review in a changing
world preliminary findings of a global study. Serials 23(1),
25-34.
Rodriguez, M.A., Bollan, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). The
convergence of digital-libraries and the peer-review process.
Journal of Information Science, 36(2), Retrieved June 12, 2011
from:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/lanl/digital_libraries_converge.pdf
References, continuedRowland, F. (2002). The peer review
process: a report to the JISC scholarly communications group.
Retrieved June 5, 2011 from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/infoenvironment/rowland.pdf
Rylance, R. (2011, June 8). Peer Review. UK Parliament HoC
Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved June 11, 2011
from:http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8528
Smith, R. (2010, March 22). Richard Smith: scrap peer review and
beware of top journals. BMJ Group Blogs. Retrieved June 11, 2011
from:
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/03/22/richard-smith-scrap-peer-review-and-beware-of-%E2%80%9Ctop-journals%E2%80%9D/
Smith, R. (2011, April 6). Richard Smith: what is
post-publication peer review? BMJ Group Blogs. Retrieved June 11,
2011:
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends
in biotechnology 20 (8), 357-358.
References, continuedSuls, J. & Martin, R. (2009). The air
we breathe: a critical look at practices and alternatives in the
peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(1),
40-50.
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: perspectives
of the scholarly community an international study. Retrieved June
12, 2011 from:
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf
Walport, M. (2011, June 8). Peer Review. UK Parliament HoC
Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8528 Ware,
M. (2011). Peer review: recent experience and future directions.
New Review of Information Networking 16, 23-53.