- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication
Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):809-812 (2015)
Abstract
The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings. Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papersOther Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study.Georgia Vesma - 2026 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 11 (1).
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.J. A. García, Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):265-283.
Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.Jia Zhu, Gabriel Fung, Wai Hung Wong, Zhixu Li & Chuanhua Xu - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1073-1094.
Academic Journals, Incentives, and the Quality of Peer Review: A Model.Kevin J. S. Zollman, Julian García & Toby Handfield - 2024 - Philosophy of Science 91 (1):186-203.
It Is Time to Re-Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research.Rajat Bhattacharya & Lee M. Ellis - 2018 - Bioessays 40 (1):1700185.
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function.Adrian Barnett, Nicholas Graves, Karen E. Mow, Kathy Hill, Danielle L. Herbert & John Coveney - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-04-30
Downloads
73 (#803,561)
6 months
19 (#603,192)
2014-04-30
Downloads
73 (#803,561)
6 months
19 (#603,192)
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions.Anton Oleinik - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics (1):1-21.
Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions.Anton Oleinik - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1):55-75.
Reflections on Peer review practices in committees selecting laureates for prestigious awards and prizes: Some relevant and irrelevant criteria.Ashok K. Vijh - 1996 - Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):389-394.
Try MATCHA Writer if you're interested in citing directly from PhilPapers and certifying your authorship.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation