scholarly journals Role of peer-review system in quality assurance of archival publications

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (16) ◽  
pp. 1901-1903
Author(s):  
Hong-Wei Xiao
2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6Part16) ◽  
pp. 3515-3515
Author(s):  
S Hsu ◽  
A Basavatia ◽  
M Garg ◽  
S Kalnicki ◽  
W Tome

Author(s):  
Ahmad Yaman Abdin ◽  
Muhmmad Jawad Nasim ◽  
Yannick Ney ◽  
Claus Jacob

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer-review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steady, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript we propose forms of Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges such a P4R approach is facing.


Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Ahmad Yaman Abdin ◽  
Muhammad Jawad Nasim ◽  
Yannick Ney ◽  
Claus Jacob

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery, since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steadily, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript, we propose forms of post-publication public peer review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges, such a P4R approach faces.


HortScience ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 553B-553
Author(s):  
Michael W. Neff

The ASHS Publications Department's primary function is to organize and manage the Society's peer-review system and distribute the horticultural information that meets the requirements for dissemination. As Web and other electronic information distribution systems come on-line, the functions of the department will not change, but the methods to achieving the final product will change. Issues such as the security of electronic peer-review and controlled methods of information dissemination are at the forefront of discussions among scientific publishers, and the role of established scientific society publication departments on how best to implement the changes brought about by Internet in the distribution of this information will be discussed. A comparison of the “traditional” methods of peer review and the future of peer review will be compared, and the synergism of the changes will also be addressed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document