Scholarly Publications

Peer Review

The strengths and weaknesses of the traditional peer review system have been discussed extensively in many forums.  Some interesting links are given below:

  1. Quality Control: The case against peer review by Daniel Engber, April 5, 2005.
  2. Is Peer Review Broken? by Allison McCook, 20(2):26, Feb 1, 2006.
  3. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies by Jefferson, M Rudin, S Brodney Folse, and F Davidoff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
  4. Experimenting with Peer-Review by Martin Walker, 2009.
  5. Peer Review Guide by the UK Research Information Network, Mar 2010.
  6. Peer review is no picnic by Jenny Rohn, Sep 6, 2010.
  7. Peer review highly sensitive to poor refereeing, claim researchers by James Dacey, Sep 9, 2010.
  8. A trip through the peer review sausage grinder by Chris Lee, Nov 2010.
  9. Classical peer review: an empty gun by Richard Smith, Dec 20, 2010.
  10. Strong scientific peer review leads to better science and policy formation in Science Blog, January 19, 2011.
  11. Peer-review here we go again... by Sylvia McLain, Jan. 22, 2011.
  12. Peer review: Trial by Twitter by Apoorva Mandavilli, January 23, 2011.  Also in Nature 469, 286-287 (2011) | doi:10.1038/469286a, published online on Jan 19, 2011.
  13. What is it with researchers and peer review? or; Why misquoting Churchill does not an argument make by Cameron Neylon, Jan 25, 2011.

CRA LogoCOMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
1828 L STREET, NW SUITE 800, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
P: 202-234-2111 | F: 202-667-1066 | E: INFO @ CRA . ORG

CRA-W Logo CCC Logo