Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals

Article English OPEN
Margalida, Antoni; Colomer, M. Àngels (Maria Àngels);

We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three highquality journal... View more
  • References (20)
    20 references, page 1 of 2

    Bornmann L. 2013. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45:197 245.

    Cantor M, Geo S. 2015. The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers. Royal Society Open Science 2:140540 DOI 10.1098/rsos.140540.

    Enserink M. 2001. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection. Science 293:2187 2128 DOI 10.1126/science.293.5538.2187a.

    Fang FC, Grant Steen R, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:17028 17033 DOI 10.1073/pnas.1212247109.

    Feng Lu S, Zhe Jin G, Uzzi B, Jones B. 2013. The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports 3:3146 DOI 10.1038/srep03146.

    Grant Steen R, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 8:e68397 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.

    Hauser M, Fehr E. 2007. An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology 5:e107 DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107.

    Horton R. 2002. Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:2843 2847 DOI 10.1001/jama.287.21.2843.

    Jauch LR, Wall JL. 1989. What they do when they get your manuscript: a survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices. Academy Management Journal 32:157 173 DOI 10.2307/256424.

    Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wagner E, Davidoff F. 2002. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:2784 2786 DOI 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository
Share - Bookmark