Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Reading Peer Review
    • You have access
    • Open access
  • Cited by 8
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
January 2021
Print publication year:
2021
Online ISBN:
9781108783521
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108783521
Creative Commons:
Creative Common License - CC Creative Common License - BY Creative Common License - NC Creative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/creativelicenses
Subjects:
Literature, Printing and Publishing History, Literary Theory
Series:
Elements in Publishing and Book Culture
Information

Book description

This Element describes for the first time the database of peer review reports at PLOS ONE, the largest scientific journal in the world, to which the authors had unique access. Specifically, this Element presents the background contexts and histories of peer review, the data-handling sensitivities of this type of research, the typical properties of reports in the journal to which the authors had access, a taxonomy of the reports, and their sentiment arcs. This unique work thereby yields a compelling and unprecedented set of insights into the evolving state of peer review in the twenty-first century, at a crucial political moment for the transformation of science. It also, though, presents a study in radicalism and the ways in which PLOS's vision for science can be said to have effected change in the ultra-conservative contemporary university. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

References

References

Adams, Jean, Hillier-Brown, Frances C., Moore, Helen J., Lake, Amelia A., Araujo-Soares, Vera, White, Martin, and Summerbell, Carolyn. 2016. ‘Searching and Synthesising “Grey Literature” and “Grey Information” in Public Health: Critical Reflections on Three Case Studies’. Systematic Reviews 5 (1): 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y.
Adema, Janneke. 2018. ‘Scholar-Led Publishing: Scaling Small’. Presented at the OpenAIRE workshop, Royal Library, The Hague, The Netherlands, April 5. www.slideshare.net/OpenAIRE_eu/openaire-workshop-beyond-apcs-janneke-adema.
Aktas, Rahime Nur, and Cortes, Viviana. 2008. ‘Shell Nouns as Cohesive Devices in Published and ESL Student Writing’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002.
Alberts, Bruce, Hanson, Brooks, and Kelner, Katrina L.. 2008. ‘Reviewing Peer Review’. Science 321 (5885): 15. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162115.
Aldhous, Peter. 2011. ‘Journal Rejects Studies Contradicting Precognition’. New Scientist. May 5, 2011. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition/.
Allen, Heidi, Cury, Alexandra, Gaston, Thomas, Graf, Chris, Wakley, Hannah, and Willis, Michael. 2019. ‘What Does Better Peer Review Look Like? Underlying Principles and Recommendations for Better Practice’. Learned Publishing 32 (2): 163–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222.
Allison, Sarah, Heuser, Ryan, Jockers, Matthew, Moretti, Franco, and Witmore, Michael. 2011. ‘Quantitative Formalism: An Experiment’. Stanford Literary Lab. https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet1.pdf.
An Open-Source Neural Hierarchical Multi-Label Text Classification Toolkit: Tencent/NeuralNLP-NeuralClassifier. 2019. Python. Tencent. https://github.com/Tencent/NeuralNLP-NeuralClassifier.
Azoulay, Pierre, Fons-Rosen, Christian, and Graff Zivin, Joshua S.. 2019. ‘Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?’ American Economic Review 109 (8): 2889–920. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161574.
Azoulay, Pierre, Graff Zivin, Joshua S., and Manso, Gustavo. 2011. ‘Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences’. The RAND Journal of Economics 42 (3): 527–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.x.
Bakanic, Von, McPhail, Clark, and Simon, Rita J.. 1989. ‘Mixed Messages: Referees’ Comments on the Manuscripts They Review’. The Sociological Quarterly 30 (4): 639–54.
Baldwin, Melinda. 2017. ‘In Referees We Trust?’ Physics Today 70 (2): 44–9. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3463.
Baldwin, Melinda. 2018. ‘Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States’. Isis 109 (3): 538–58. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070.
Bardy, A. H. 1998. ‘Bias in Reporting Clinical Trials’. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 46 (2): 147–50. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1998.00759.x.
Bar-Ilan, Judit, and Halevi, Gali. 2017. ‘Post Retraction Citations in Context: A Case Study’. Scientometrics 113 (1): 547–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0.
Batagelj, Vladimir, Ferligoj, Anuška, and Squazzoni, Flaminio. 2017. ‘The Emergence of a Field: A Network Analysis of Research on Peer Review’. Scientometrics 113 (1): 503–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2522-8.
Baverstock, Alison. 2016. ‘Is Peer Review Still the Content Industry’s Upper House?’ Learned Publishing 29 (1): 65–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1013.
Behar, Ruth, and Gordon, Deborah A., eds. 1995. Women Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Belcher, Diane D. 2007. ‘Seeking Acceptance in an English-Only Research World’. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001.
Belluz, Julia. 2015. ‘Let’s Stop Pretending Peer Review Works’. Vox. December 7, 2015. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems.
Berkenkotter, Carol. 1995. ‘The Power and the Perils of Peer Review’. Rhetoric Review 13 (2): 245–48.
‘Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities’. 2003. October 22, 2003. http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung.
Beukeboom, Camiel J., and Burgers, Christian. 2017. ‘Linguistic Bias’. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.439.
Bhaskar, Michael. 2016. Curation: The Power of Selection in a World of Excess. London: Piatkus.
Biernat, Monica, M. , Tocci, J., and Williams, Joan C.. 2012. ‘The Language of Performance Evaluations: Gender-Based Shifts in Content and Consistency of Judgment’. Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (2): 186–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415693.
Blei, David M., Ng, Andrew Y., and Jordan, Michael I.. 2003. ‘Latent Dirichlet Allocation’. Journal of Machine Learning Research (3): 993–1022.
Bolívar, Adriana. 2011. ‘Funciones Discursivas de La Evaluación Negativa En Informes de Arbitraje de Artículos de Investigación’. Núcleo 23 (28): 59–89.
Bonjean, Charles M., and Hullum, Jan. 1978. ‘Reasons for Journal Rejection: An Analysis of 600 Manuscripts’. PS 11: 480–3.
Bornmann, Lutz. 2011a. ‘Peer Review and Bibliometrics: Potentials and Problems’. In University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, edited by Shin, Jung Cheol, Toutkoushian, Robert K., and Teichler, Ulrich, 145–64. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7.
Bornmann, Lutz. 2011b. ‘Scientific Peer Review’. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45 (1): 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
Bornmann, Lutz, and Daniel, Hans-Dieter. 2008. ‘The Effectiveness of the Peer Review Process: Inter-Referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript Refereeing at Angewandte Chemie’. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 47 (38): 7173–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200800513.
Bornmann, Lutz, Weymuth, Christophe, and Daniel, Hans-Dieter. 2010. ‘A Content Analysis of Referees’ Comments: How Do Comments on Manuscripts Rejected by a High-Impact Journal and Later Published in Either a Low- or High-Impact Journal Differ?’ Scientometrics 83 (2): 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4.
Bourke-Waite, Amy. 2015. ‘Innovations in Scholarly Peer Review at Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan’. Insights 28 (2). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.243.
Brainard, Jeffrey, and You, Jia. 2018. ‘What a Massive Database of Retracted Papers Reveals about Science Publishing’s “Death Penalty”’. Science. October 25, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty.
Brembs, Björn, Button, Katherine, and Marcus, Munafò. 2013. ‘Deep Impact: Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank’. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
Brown, H. M. 2003. ‘Peer Review Should Not Be Anonymous’. British Medical Journal 326 (7393): 824. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7393.824/b.
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buchanan, James M. 1965. ‘An Economic Theory of Clubs’. Economica 32 (125): 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/2552442.
Buckheit, Jonathan B., and Donoho, David L.. 1995. ‘Wavelab and Reproducible Research’. In Wavelets and Statistics, edited by Antoniadis, Anestis and Oppenheim, George, 55–81. Berlin. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4612-2544-7_5.
Budden, Amber E., Tregenza, Tom, Aarssen, Lonnie W., Koricheva, Julia, Leimu, Roosa, and Lortie, Christopher J.. 2008. ‘Double-Blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (1): 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.
Burgers, Christian, and Beukeboom, Camiel J.. 2016. ‘Stereotype Transmission and Maintenance Through Interpersonal Communication: The Irony Bias’. Communication Research 43 (3): 414–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534975.
Butchard, Dorothy, Rowberry, Simon, Squires, Claire, and Tasker, Gill. 2017. Peer Review in Practice. London: University College London Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781911307679.15.
Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., and de Mazancourt, C.. 2012. ‘Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns.’ Science 338 (6110): 1065–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227833.
Campanario, Juan Miguel. 1993. ‘Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes It Is Hard to Publish Papers That Are Later Highly-Cited.’ Social Studies of Science 23 (2): 342–62.
Campanario, Juan Miguel. 1996. ‘Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All Times?’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47 (4): 302–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0.
Campanario, Juan Miguel. 2009. ‘Rejecting and Resisting Nobel Class Discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates.’ Scientometrics 81 (2): 549–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5.
Campanario, Juan Miguel, and Acedo, Erika. 2007. ‘Rejecting Highly Cited Papers: The Views of Scientists Who Encounter Resistance to Their Discoveries from Other Scientists.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (5): 734–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20556.
Casnici, Niccolò, Grimaldo, Francisco, Gilbert, Nigel, Dondio, Pierpaolo, and Squazzoni, Flaminio. 2017. ‘Assessing Peer Review by Gauging the Fate of Rejected Manuscripts: The Case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.’ Scientometrics 113 (1): 533–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1.
Casnici, Niccolò, Grimaldo, Francisco, Gilbert, Nigel, and Squazzoni, Flaminio. 2017. ‘Attitudes of Referees in a Multidisciplinary Journal: An Empirical Analysis.’ Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68 (7): 1763–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23665.
Ceci, Stephen J., and Peters, Douglas P.. 1982. ‘Peer Review: A Study of Reliability.’ Change 14 (6): 44–8.
Chan, Leslie, Cuplinskas, Darius, Eisen, Michael, Friend, Fred, Genova, Yana, Guédon, Jean-Claude, Hagemann, Melissa, et al. 2002. ‘Budapest Open Access Initiative.’ February 14, 2002. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml.
Chase, Janet M. 1970. ‘Normative Criteria for Scientific Publication.’ The American Sociologist 5 (3): 262–5.
Chawla, Dalmeet Singh. 2019. ‘Thousands of Grant Peer Reviewers Share Concerns in Global Survey.’ Nature, October 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03105-2.
Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. The Management of Innovation and Change Series. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Hackett, Edward J.. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. SUNY Series in Science, Technology, and Society. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cicchetti, Domenic V. 1991. ‘The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1): 119–35.
Coates, Jennifer. 2013. ‘“So I Mean I Probably …”: Hedges and Hedging in Women’s Talk [2003].’ In Women, Men and Everyday Talk, 31–49. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314949_3.
Cockerill, Matthew. 2014. ‘Has Open Access Failed?’ OUPblog. October 23, 2014. https://blog.oup.com/2014/10/open-access-success-failure/.
Collins, Hanry. 2010. ‘Interdisciplinary Peer Review and Interactional Expertise.’ Sociologica, 3: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2383/33638.
Coniam, David. 2012. ‘Exploring Reviewer Reactions to Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals.’ System 40 (4): 544–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002.
Connor, Ulla, and Mauranen, Anna. 1999. ‘Linguistic Analysis of Grant Proposals: European Union Research Grants.’ English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4.
Costello, Leslie C. 2010. ‘Perspective: Is NIH Funding the “Best Science by the Best Scientists”? A Critique of the NIH R01 Research Grant Review Policies’. Academic Medicine 85 (5): 775–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d74256.
Crompton, Peter. 1997. ‘Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems.’ English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 271–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0.
Cronin, Blaise. 1984. The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. London: T. Graham.
Cronin, Blaise. 1998. ‘Metatheorizing Citation.’ Scientometrics 43 (1): 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458393.
Cronin, Blaise. 2000. ‘Semiotics and Evaluative Bibliometrics’. Journal of Documentation 56 (4): 440–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007123.
Cronin, Blaise. 2009. ‘Vernacular and Vehicular Language’. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (3): 433. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21010.
Crotty, Michael. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage Publications.
Da, Nan Z. 2019. ‘The Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies’. Critical Inquiry 45 (3): 601–39. https://doi.org/10.1086/702594.
Dall’Aglio, Paolo. 2006. ‘Peer Review and Journal Models’. ArXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608307.
Daniel, Hans-Dieter. 1993. Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. Translated by William E. Russey. Weinheim: VCH.
Daniels, Aubrey C. 2009. Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time and Money (and What to Do Instead). Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.
Davies, Christie. 1989. ‘Goffman’s Concept of the Total Institution: Criticisms and Revisions’. Human Studies 12 (1/2): 77–95.
DeCoursey, Thomas. 2006. ‘The Pros and Cons of Open Peer Review’. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04991.
Denzin, Norman K. 2010. ‘Grounded and Indigenous Theories and the Politics of Pragmatism’. Sociological Inquiry 80 (2): 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00332.x.
Dickersin, K., Chan, S., Chalmers, T.C., Sacks, H.S., and Smith, H.. 1987. ‘Publication Bias and Clinical Trials’. Controlled Clinical Trials 8 (4): 343–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3.
Dickersin, Kay, Min, Yuan-I, and Meinert, Curtis L.. 1992. ‘Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results: Follow-up of Applications Submitted to Two Institutional Review Boards’. JAMA 267 (3): 374–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036.
Dressen-Hammouda, Dacia. 2013. ‘Politeness Strategies in the Job Application Letter: Implications of Intercultural Rhetoric for Designing Writing Feedback’. ASp. La Revue Du GERAS, (64): 139–59. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.3866.
Drvenica, Ivana, Bravo, Giangiacomo, Vejmelka, Lucija, Dekanski, Aleksandar, and Olgica, Nedić. 2019. ‘Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective’. Publications 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 2009. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107049963.
Emerson, Robert M., Fretz, Rachel I., and Shaw, Linda L.. 1995. ‘Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes’. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Englander, Karent. 2006. ‘Revision of Scientific Manuscripts by Non-Native English-Speaking Scientists in Response to Journal Editors’ Language Critiques’. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 3 (2): 129–61. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v3i2.129.
Enslin, Penny, and Hedge, Nicki. 2018. ‘On Peer Review as the “Gold Standard” in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?’ Journal of Philosophy of Education 52 (3): 379–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12312.
Erikson, Martin G., and Erlandson, Peter. 2014. ‘A Taxonomy of Motives to Cite’. Social Studies of Science 44 (4): 625–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714522871.
Ernst, E., and Kienbacher, T.. 1991. ‘Chauvinism’. Nature 352 (6336): 560. https://doi.org/10.1038/352560b0.
Eve, Martin Paul. 2013. ‘Before the Law: Open Access, Quality Control and the Future of Peer Review’. In Debating Open Access, edited by Vincent, Nigel and Wickham, Chris, 68–81. London: British Academy.
Eve, Martin Paul. 2017. ‘Scarcity and Abundance’. In The Bloomsbury Handbook of Electronic Literature, edited by Tabbi, Joseph, 385–98. London: Bloomsbury.
Eve, Martin Paul. 2019. Close Reading With Computers: Textual Scholarship, Computational Formalism, and David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Eve, Martin Paul. 2020. ‘Reading Scholarship Digitally’. In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Eve, Martin Paul and Gray, Jonathan. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Eve, Martin Paul, and Gray, Jonathan, eds. 2020. Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Eyre-Walker, Adam, and Stoletzki, Nina. 2013. ‘The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations’. PLOS Biology 11 (10): e1001675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001675.
Falagas, Matthew E., Zarkali, Angeliki, Karageorgopoulos, Drosos E., Bardakas, Vangelis, and Mavros, Michael N.. 2013. ‘The Impact of Article Length on the Number of Future Citations: A Bibliometric Analysis of General Medicine Journals’. PLOS ONE 8 (2): e49476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049476.
Fanelli, Daniele. 2010. ‘Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data’. PLoS ONE 5 (4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
Fanelli, Daniele. 2011. ‘Negative Results Are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries’. Scientometrics 90 (3): 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.
Fang, Ferric C., Bowen, Anthony, and Casadevall, Arturo. 2016. ‘NIH Peer Review Percentile Scores Are Poorly Predictive of Grant Productivity’. ELife 5 (February). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13323.
Fang, Ferric C., and Casadevall, Arturo. 2011. ‘Retracted Science and the Retraction Index’. Infection and Immunity 79 (10): 3855–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11.
Fernández, Eliecer Crespo. 2005. ‘Euphemistic Strategies in Politeness and Face Concerns’. Pragmalingüística (13): 77–86. https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2017.i25.
Fierro, Paula Cabezas del, Meruane, Omar Sabaj, Varas Espinoza, Germán, and González Herrera, Valeria. 2018. ‘Peering into Peer Review: Good Quality Reviews of Research Articles Require Neither Writing Too Much nor Taking Too Long’. Transinformação 30 (2): 209–18. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000200006.
Fish, Stanley. 1988. ‘No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission’. PMLA 103 (5): 739–48.
Fisher, Martin, Friedman, Stanford B., and Strauss, Barbara. 1994. ‘The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review’. JAMA 272 (2): 143–46. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2011. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: New York University Press.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2019. Generous Thinking: The University and the Public Good. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fogg, Louis, and Fiske, Donald W.. 1993. ‘Foretelling the Judgments of Reviewers and Editors’. American Psychologist 48 (3): 293–4. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.3.293.
Ford, Emily. 2013. ‘Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature’. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44 (4): 311–26. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001.
Fortanet, Inmaculada. 2008. ‘Evaluative Language in Peer Review Referee Reports’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (1): 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004.
Fuller, Steve. 1999. ‘Response to the Japanese Social Epistemologists: Some Ways Forward for the 21st Century’. Social Epistemology 13 (3–4): 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/026917299298600.
Fyfe, Aileen. 2015. ‘Peer Review: Not as Old as You Might Think’. Times Higher Education. June 25, 2015. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think.
Fyfe, Aileen, Squazzoni, Flaminio, Torny, Didier, and Dondio, Pierpaolo. 2019. ‘Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865–1965’. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (5): 922–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868.
Gans, Joshua S. 2017. Scholarly Publishing and Its Discontents. Ontario: Core Economic Research Ltd.
Gans, Joshua S., and Shepherd, George B.. 1994. ‘How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists’. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1): 165–79.
George, Richard T. de, and Woodward, Fred. 1994. ‘Ethics and Manuscript Reviewing’. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 25 (3): 133–45.
‘Get The Research’. n.d. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://gettheresearch.org/.
Giannoni, Davide Simone. 2008. ‘Medical Writing at the Periphery: The Case of Italian Journal Editorials’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2): 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.003.
Giles, Jim. 2007. ‘Open-Access Journal Will Publish First, Judge Later’. Nature 445 (7123): 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/445009a.
Gillespie, Gilbert W., Chubin, Daryl E., and Kurzon, George M.. 1985. ‘Experience with NIH Peer Review: Researchers’ Cynicism and Desire for Change’. Science, Technology, & Human Values 10 (3): 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000306.
Godlee, Fiona. 2002. ‘Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit’. JAMA 287 (21): 2762. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.
Godlee, Fiona, Gale, Catharine R., and Martyn, Christopher N.. 1998. ‘Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports: A Randomized Controlled Trial’. JAMA 280 (3): 237–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.237.
Godlee, Fiona, Smith, Jane, and Marcovitch, Harvey. 2011. ‘Wakefield’s Article Linking MMR Vaccine and Autism Was Fraudulent’. British Medical Journal 342: c7452. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452.
Goffman, Erving. 1968. Asylums. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Goldacre, Ben. 2011. ‘I Foresee That Nobody Will Do Anything about This Problem’. Bad Science (blog). April 23, 2011. http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/i-foresee-that-nobody-will-do-anything-about-this-problem/.
Goodman, Steven N. 1994. ‘Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine’. Annals of Internal Medicine 121 (1): 11. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003.
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. 2002. ‘Public Library of Science to Launch New, Free-Access Biomedical Journals with $9 Million Grant’. December 17, 2002. www.moore.org/article-detail?newsUrlName=public-library-of-science-to-launch-new-free-access-biomedical-journals-with-$9-million-grant-from-the-gordon-and-betty-moore-foundation.
Gosden, Hugh. 2001. ‘‘‘Thank You for Your Critical Comments and Helpful Suggestions”: Compliance and Conflict in Authors’ Replies to Referees’ Comments in Peer Reviews of Scientific Research Papers’. Iberica 3: 3–17.
Gosden, Hugh. 2003. ‘‘‘Why Not Give Us the Full Story?”: Functions of Referees’ Comments in Peer Reviews of Scientific Research Papers’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (2): 87–101.
Greene, Sheila, and Hogan, Diane, eds. 2005. Researching Children’s Experience: Methods and Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Grimaldo, Francisco, Marušić, Ana, and Squazzoni, Flaminio. 2018. ‘Fragments of Peer Review: A Quantitative Analysis of the Literature (1969–2015)’. PLOS ONE 13 (2): e0193148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193148.
Grimaldo, Francisco, Paolucci, Mario, and Sabater-Mir., Jordi 2018. ‘Reputation or Peer Review? The Role of Outliers’. Scientometrics 116 (3): 1421–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2826-3.
Hames, Irene. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management of Scientific Journals Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hames, Irene. 2014. ‘The Changing Face of Peer Review’. Science Editing 1 (1): 9–12. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9.
Hann, Rachel. 2019. ‘Interview with Rachel Hann’. Journal of Arts Writing by Students 5 (1): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1386/jaws.5.1.5_1.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
Hartley, John. 2015. ‘Public Intellectuals: La Lutte Continue?’ Media International Australia 156 (1): 108–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1515600113.
Hartley, John, Potts, Jason, Montgomery, Lucy, Rennie, Ellie, and Neylon, Cameron. 2019. ‘Do We Need to Move from Communication Technology to User Community? A New Economic Model of the Journal as a Club’. Learned Publishing 32 (1): 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1228.
Harwood, Nigel. 2005a. ‘“I Hoped to Counteract the Memory Problem, but I Made No Impact Whatsoever”: Discussing Methods in Computing Science Using I’. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 243–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.10.002.
Harwood, Nigel. 2005b. ‘“Nowhere Has Anyone Attempted … In This Article I Aim to Do Just That”: A Corpus-Based Study of Self-Promotional I and We in Academic Writing across Four Disciplines’. Journal of Pragmatics, Focus-on Issue: Marking Discourse, 37 (8): 1207–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012.
Held, Gudrun. 2010. ‘Submission Strategies As an Expression of the Ideology of Politeness: Reflections on the Verbalisation of Social Power Relations’. Pragmatics 9 (1): 21–36.
Helmer, Markus, Schottdorf, Manuel, Neef, Andreas, and Battaglia, Demian. 2017. ‘Gender Bias in Scholarly Peer Review’. ELife 6: e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.
Herron, Daniel M. 2012. ‘Is Expert Peer Review Obsolete? A Model Suggests That Post-Publication Reader Review May Exceed the Accuracy of Traditional Peer Review’. Surgical Endoscopy 26 (8): 2275–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1.
Hinkel, Eli. 2005. ‘Hedging, Inflating, and Persuading in L2 Academic Writing’. Applied Language Learning 15: 29–53.
Hirschauer, Stefan. 2010. ‘Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review’. Social Studies of Science 40 (1): 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709335405.
Holmwood, John. 2020. ‘Open Access, “Publicity”, and Democratic Knowledge’. In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Eve, Martin Paul and Gray, Jonathan. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Houghton, John W. 2011. ‘The Costs and Potential Benefits of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models’. Information Research 16 (1). http://informationr.net/ir/16-1/paper469.html.
Hudson, Nicholas. 2002. ‘Challenging Eisenstein: Recent Studies in Print Culture’. Eighteenth-Century Life 26 (2): 83–95.
Huisman, Janine, and Smits, Jeroen. 2017. ‘Duration and Quality of the Peer Review Process: The Author’s Perspective’. Scientometrics 113 (1): 633–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5.
Hyland, Ken. 1996. ‘Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles’. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. ‘Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge’. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18 (3): 349–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349.
Hyland, Ken. 2000. ‘Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in Academic Texts’. Language Awareness 9 (4): 179–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145.
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ingelfinger, Franz J. 1974. ‘Peer Review in Biomedical Publication’. The American Journal of Medicine 56: 686–92.
Ioannidis, John P. A. 1998. ‘Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials’. JAMA 279 (4): 281–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.4.281.
Jefferies, Janis, and Kember, Sarah. 2019. ‘Introduction’. In Whose Book Is It Anyway? A View from Elsewhere on Publishing, Copyright and Creativity, edited by Jefferies, Janis and Kember, Sarah, 1–15. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
Jockers, Matthew L. 2013. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History. Topics in the Digital Humanities. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Johns, Adrian. 1998. The Nature of the Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Justice, Amy C., Cho, Mildred K., Winker, Margaret A., Berlin, Jesse A., Rennie, Drummond, and the PEER Investigators. 1998. ‘Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?: A Randomized Controlled Trial’. JAMA 280 (3): 240–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.240.
Kaatz, Anna, Gutierrez, Belinda, and Carnes, Molly. 2014. ‘Threats to Objectivity in Peer Review: The Case of Gender’. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 35 (8): 371–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2014.06.005.
Kahin, Brian, and Varian, Hal R., eds. 2000. Internet Publishing and Beyond: The Economics of Digital Information and Intellectual Property. A Publication of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kennison, Rebecca. 2016. ‘Back to the Future: (Re)Turning from Peer Review to Peer Engagement’. Learned Publishing 29 (1): 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1001.
Kim, Loi Chek, and Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa. 2015. ‘Hedging in Academic Writing – A Pedagogically-Motivated Qualitative Study’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, 197: 600–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.200.
Kourilova, M. 1998. ‘Communicative Characteristics of Reviews of Scientific Papers Written by Non-Native Users of English’. Endocrine Regulations 32 (2): 107–14.
Kravitz, Richard L., Franks, Peter, Feldman, Mitchell D., Gerrity, Martha, Byrne, Cindy, and Tierney, William M.. 2010. ‘Editorial Peer Reviewers’ Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?’ PLOS ONE 5 (4): e10072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
LaFollette, Marcel C. 1992. Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, Jean, and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Learning in Doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, Peter A. 2007. ‘The Mismeasurement of Science’. Current Biology 17 (15): R583–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.014.
Lillis, Theresa, and Curry, Mary Jane. 2015. ‘The Politics of English, Language and Uptake: The Case of International Academic Journal Article Reviews’. AILA Review 28: 127–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil.
Lindner, Mark D., and Nakamura, Richard K.. 2015. ‘Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores’. Edited by Smalheiser, Neil R.. PLOS ONE 10 (6): e0126938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126938.
Lindsey, Duncan, and Lindsey, Thomas. 1978. ‘The Outlook of Journal Editors and Referees on the Normative Criteria of Scientific Craftsmanship: Viewpoints from Psychology, Social Work and Sociology’. Quality and Quantity 12 (1): 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138658.
Link, Ann M. 1998. ‘US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias’. JAMA 280 (3): 246–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.246.
Lloyd, Margaret E. 1990. ‘Gender Factors in Reviewer Recommendations for Manuscript Publication’. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 23 (4): 539-43. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-539.
Lock, Stephen. 1986. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. The Rock Carling Fellowship. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press.
Lodahl, Janice Beyer, and Gordon, Gerald. 1972. ‘The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments’. American Sociological Review 37 (1): 57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093493.
Lundh, Andreas, Barbateskovic, Marija, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, and Gøtzsche, Peter C.. 2010. ‘Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study’. PLOS Medicine 7 (10): e1000354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000354.
MacCallum, Catriona J. 2006. ‘ONE for All: The Next Step for PLoS’. PLOS Biology 4 (11): e401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040401.
Mahoney, Michael J. 1977. ‘Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System’. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 (2): 161–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636.
Mandler, Peter. 2013. ‘Open Access for the Humanities: Not for Funders, Scientists or Publishers’. Journal of Victorian Culture 18 (4): 551–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13555502.2013.865981.
McCurdy, David W., Spradley, James P., and Shandy, Dianna J.. 2005. The Cultural Experience: Ethnography in Complex Society. 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
McGuigan, Glenn S., and Russell, Robert D.. 2008. ‘The Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic Journal Publishing Industry and Its Impact on the Future of Scholarly Publishing’. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 9 (3). http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html.
McKenzie, Lindsay. 2019. ‘AI That Summarizes Research Papers Could Have Useful Applications for Academics’. Inside Higher Ed. May 14, 2019. www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/14/ai-summarizes-research-papers-could-have-useful-applications-academics.
McNutt, Robert A., Evans, Arthur T., Fletcher, Robert H., and Fletcher, Suzanne W.. 1990. ‘The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial’. JAMA 263 (10): 1371–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100079012.
Meng, Weishi. 2016. ‘Peer Review: Is NIH Rewarding Talent?’ Science Transparency. January 10, 2016. https://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/peer-review-is-nih-rewarding-talent/.
Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Meruane, Omar Sabaj, González Vergara, Carlos, and Pina-Stranger, Álvaro. 2016. ‘What We Still Don’t Know About Peer Review’. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47 (2): 180–212. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.2.180.
Mom, Charlie, Sandström, Ulf, and Peter, van den Besselaar. 2018. ‘Does Cronyism Affect Grant Application Success? The Role of Organizational Proximity’. STI 2018 Conference Proceedings, 1579–85.
Montgomery, Lucy, Hartley, John, Neylon, Cameron, Gillies, Malcolm, Gray, Eve, Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten, Huang, Chun-Kai (Karl), et al. 2018. ‘Open Knowledge Institutions’. Works in Progress, July. https://doi.org/10.21428/99f89a34.
Moore, Samuel, Neylon, Cameron, Eve, Martin Paul, O’Donnell, Daniel Paul, and Pattinson, Damian. 2017. ‘Excellence R Us: University Research and the Fetishisation of Excellence’. Palgrave Communications 3. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.105.
Moretti, Franco. 2007. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. London: Verso.
Moretti, Franco 2013. Distant Reading. London: Verso.
Morrison, Heather. 2013. ‘Economics of Scholarly Communication in Transition’. First Monday 18 (6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i6.4370.
Moxham, Noah, and Fyfe, Aileen. 2018. ‘The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965’. The Historical Journal 61 (4): 863–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334.
Mrowinski, Maciej J., Fronczak, Agata, Fronczak, Piotr, Nedic, Olgica, and Ausloos, Marcel. 2016. ‘Review Time in Peer Review: Quantitative Analysis and Modelling of Editorial Workflows’. Scientometrics 107 (1): 271–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z.
Mrowinski, Maciej J., Fronczak, Piotr, Fronczak, Agata, Ausloos, Marcel, and Nedic, Olgica. 2017. ‘Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: How Can Evolutionary Computation Support Journal Editors?’ PLOS ONE 12 (9): e0184711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184711.
Mulligan, Adrian, Hall, Louise, and Raphael, Ellen. 2013. ‘Peer Review in a Changing World: An International Study Measuring the Attitudes of Researchers’. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 132–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798.
Murray, Dakota, Siler, Kyle, Lariviére, Vincent, Chan, Wei Mun, Collings, Andrew M., Raymond, Jennifer, and Sugimoto, Cassidy R.. 2018. ‘Gender and International Diversity Improves Equity in Peer Review’. BioRxiv, August. https://doi.org/10.1101/400515.
Mustaine, Elizabeth Ehrhardt, and Tewksbury, Richard. 2008. ‘Reviewers’ Views on Reviewing: An Examination of the Peer Review Process in Criminal Justice’. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 19 (3): 351–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250802476178.
Myers, Greg. 1989. ‘The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles’. Applied Linguistics 10 (1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1.
Nash, Walter. 1990. The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Neylon, Cameron. 2010. ‘It’s Not Information Overload, nor Is It Filter Failure: It’s a Discovery Deficit’. Science in the Open. July 8, 2010. https://cameronneylon.net/blog/it%e2%80%99s-not-information-overload-nor-is-it-filter-failure-it%e2%80%99s-a-discovery-deficit/.
Nicholson, Joshua M., and Ioannidis, John P. A.. 2012. ‘Research Grants: Conform and Be Funded’. Nature 492 (7427): 34–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/492034a.
Nielsen, Michael. 2011. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nikolov, Nikola I., Pfeiffer, Michael, and Hahnloser, Richard H. R.. 2018. ‘Data-Driven Summarization of Scientific Articles’. ArXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08875.
Nosek, Brian A., Spies, Jeffrey R., and Motyl, Matt. 2012. ‘Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability’. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 615–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058.
O’Brien, Anna, Graf, Chris, and McKellar, Kate. 2019. ‘How Publishers and Editors Can Help Early Career Researchers: Recommendations from a Roundtable Discussion’. Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1249.
Okike, Kanu, Hug, Kevin T., Kocher, Mininder S., and Leopold, Seth S.. 2016. ‘Single-Blind vs Double-Blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige’. JAMA 316 (12): 1315–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.11014.
Olbrecht, Meike, and Bornmann, Lutz. 2010. ‘Panel Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know from Research in Social Psychology on Judgment and Decision-Making in Groups?’ Research Evaluation 19 (4): 293–304. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X12809191250762.
Pagano, Michele. 2006. ‘American Idol and NIH Grant Review’. Cell 126 (4): 637–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.08.004.
Paltridge, Brian. 2015. ‘Referees’ Comments on Submissions to Peer-Reviewed Journals: When Is a Suggestion Not a Suggestion?’ Studies in Higher Education 40 (1): 106–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818641.
Paltridge, Brian. 2017. The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
PEERE Consortium. n.d. ‘Publications’. https://www.peere.org/category/publications/.
Petty, Richard E., Fleming, Monique A., and Fabrigar, Leandre R.. 1999. ‘The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (2): 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002005.
Pierie, Jean-Pierre E.N., Walvoort, Henk C., and Overbeke, A. John P.M.. 1996. ‘Readers’ Evaluation of Effect of Peer Review and Editing on Quality of Articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde’. The Lancet 348 (9040): 1480–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7.
Piper, Andrew. 2018. Enumerations: Data and Literary Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
PLOS. 2012. ‘New PLOS Look’. The Official PLOS Blog. July 23, 2012. https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2012/07/new-plos-look/.
PLOS. 2016a. ‘Ethical Publishing Practice’. PLOS ONE. 2016. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/ethical-publishing-practice.
PLOS. 2016b. ‘Journal Information’. PLOS ONE. 2016. http://www.plosone.org/static/information.
Potts, Jason, Hartley, John, Montgomery, Lucy, Neylon, Cameron, and Rennie, Ellie. 2017. ‘A Journal Is a Club: A New Economic Model for Scholarly Publishing’. Prometheus 35 (1): 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1386949.
Poynder, Richard. 2006a. ‘Interview with Harold Varmus’. Open and Shut? (blog). June 5, 2006. https://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/06/interview-with-harold-varmus.html.
Poynder, Richard. 2006b. ‘Open Access: Stage Two (Interview with Chris Surridge)’. Open and Shut?. June 15, 2006. https://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-access-stage-two.html.
Poynder, Richard. 2011. ‘PLoS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing’. https://richardpoynder.co.uk/PLoS_ONE.pdf.
Poynder, Richard. 2017. ‘Has the Open Access Movement Delayed the Revolution?’ Open and Shut?. October 11, 2017. https://poynder.blogspot.com/2017/10/has-open-access-movement-delayed.html.
Poynder, Richard. 2019. ‘Open Access: Could Defeat Be Snatched from the Jaws of Victory?’ https://richardpoynder.co.uk/Jaws.pdf.
Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2015. ‘Linguistic Markers and Stylistic Attributes of Hedging in English Academic Papers Written by Native and Non-Native Speakers of English’. Manusya: Journal of Humanities 18 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-01801001.
Puebla, Iratxe, and Dunbar, Deanne. 2018. ‘Increased Diversity and Inclusion to Ensure Peer Review Quality’. EveryONE: The PLOS ONE Blog. September 10, 2018. https://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2018/09/10/peer-review-week-2018-diversity/, http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/?p=22196.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1984. ‘Stalking the Perfect Journal’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2 (2): 261–7.
Rachar, Matthew. 2016. ‘Power, Hegemony, and Social Reality in Gramsci and Searle’. Journal of Political Power 9 (2): 227–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2016.1191222.
‘Retraction Watch’. n.d. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/.
Risam, Roopika. 2014. ‘Rethinking Peer Review in the Age of Digital Humanities’. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 4. https://doi.org/10.7264/n3wq0220.
Ross, Joseph S., Gross, Cary P., Desai, Mayur M., Hong, Yuling, Grant, Augustus O., Daniels, Stephen R., Hachinski, Vladimir C., Gibbons, Raymond J., Gardner, Timothy J., and Krumholz, Harlan M.. 2006. ‘Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance’. JAMA 295 (14): 1675–80. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1675.
Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2017. ‘What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review’. F1000Research 6: 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
Rothstein, Hannah R. 2014. ‘Publication Bias’. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07071.
Rothwell, Peter M., and Martyn, Christopher N.. 2000. ‘Reproducibility of Peer Review in Clinical Neuroscience’. Brain 123 (9): 1964–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.
Rubin, Herbert J., and Rubin, Irene. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. ‘Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse’. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 2001. ‘This Book Portrays the Worst Form of Mental Terrorism: Critical Speech Acts in Medical English Book Reviews (1940–2000)’. In Approaches to the Pragmatics of Scientific Discourse, edited by András, Kertész. Metalinguistica 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Saldaña, Johnny. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Saleh, Ahlam A., Ratajeski, Melissa A., and Bertolet, Marnie. 2014. ‘Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized’. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 9 (3): 28–50.
Samraj, Betty. 2016. ‘Discourse Structure and Variation in Manuscript Reviews: Implications for Genre Categorization’. English for Specific Purposes 42: 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003.
Sandler, Todd, and Tschirhart, John. 1997. ‘Club Theory: Thirty Years Later’. Public Choice (93): 335–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017952723093.
Sandler, Todd, and Tschirhart, John. 1980. ‘The Economic Theory of Clubs: An Evaluative Survey’. Journal of Economic Literature 18 (4): 1481–521.
Sandström, Ulf. 2009. ‘Cognitive Bias in Peer Review: A New Approach’. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 28–31.
Sandström, Ulf, and Martin, Hällsten. 2008. ‘Persistent Nepotism in Peer-Review’. Scientometrics 74 (2): 175–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3.
Sangster, Catherine. 2008. ‘The Work of the BBC Pronunciation Unit in the 21st Century’. AAA: Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 33 (2): 251–62.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2002. ‘Para uma sociologia das ausências e uma sociologia das emergências’. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais (63): 237–80. https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.1285.
Schmidt, Benjamin. 2012. ‘Words Alone: Dismantling Topic Models in the Humanities’. Journal of Digital Humanities 2 (1). http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2–1/words-alone-by-benjamin-m-schmidt/.
Schroter, Sara, Black, Nick, Evans, Stephen, Carpenter, James, Godlee, Fiona, and Smith, Richard. 2004. ‘Effects of Training on Quality of Peer Review: Randomised Controlled Trial’. British Medical Journal 328 (7441): 673. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE.
Scollon, Ronald, and Scollon, Suzanne B. K.. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. 2nd ed. Language in Society 21. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Searle, John R. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seeber, Marco, and Bacchelli, Alberto. 2017. ‘Does Single Blind Peer Review Hinder Newcomers?’ Scientometrics 113 (1): 567–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7.
Shatz, David. 1996. ‘Is Peer Review Overrated?’ The Monist 79 (4): 536–63.
Shatz, David. 2004. Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Issues in Academic Ethics.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Shehzad, W. 2015. ‘How to End an Introduction in a Computer Science Article: A Corpus-Based Approach’. In Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word: Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse, edited by Fitzpatrick, E., 227–41. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi. https://brill.com/view/title/30110.
Shirky, Clay. 2008. ‘It’s Not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure’. In Web 2.0 Expo. New York. http://blip.tv/web2expo/web-2-0-expo-ny-clay-shirky-shirky-com-it-s-not-information-overload-it-s-filter-failure-1283699.
Silbiger, Nyssa J., and Stubler, Amber D.. 2019. ‘Unprofessional Peer Reviews Disproportionately Harm Underrepresented Groups in STEM’. PeerJ 7 (December): e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247.
Siler, Kyle, Lee, Kirby, and Bero, Lisa. 2015. ‘Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (2): 360–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112.
Sipe, Lawrence R., and Ghiso, Maria Paula. 2004. ‘Developing Conceptual Categories in Classroom Descriptive Research: Some Problems and Possibilities’. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 35 (4): 472–85. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2004.35.4.472.
Skains, R. Lyle. 2019. Digital Authorship: Publishing in the Attention Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smigel, Erwin O., and Ross, H. Laurence. 1970. ‘Factors in the Editorial Decision’. The American Sociologist 5 (1): 19–21.
Smith, R. 1999. ‘Opening up BMJ Peer Review’. British Medical Journal 318 (7175): 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
Smith, Richard. 2006a. ‘The Trouble with Medical Journals’. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (3): 115–19.
Smith, Richard. 2006b. ‘Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals’. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4): 178–82.
Smith, Richard. 2010. ‘Classical Peer Review: An Empty Gun’. Breast Cancer Research 12 (4): S13. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Franklin, Peter. 2009. Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spezi, Valerie, Wakeling, Simon, Pinfield, Stephen, Fry, Jenny, Creaser, Claire, and Willett, Peter. 2018. ‘‘‘Let the Community Decide”? The Vision and Reality of Soundness-Only Peer Review in Open-Access Mega-Journals’. Journal of Documentation 74 (1): 137–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092.
Squazzoni, Flaminio. 2010. ‘Peering Into Peer Review’. Sociologica (3): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2383/33640.
Stanfield, John H., and Dennis, Rutledge M., eds. 1993. Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods. Sage Focus Editions 157. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Steel, Graham. 2013. ‘Publishing Research without Data Is Simply Advertising, Not Science’. Open Knowledge International Blog. September 3. http://blog.okfn.org/2013/09/03/publishing-research-without-data-is-simply-advertising-not-science/.
Sternberg, Robert J., Hojjat, Mahzad, Brigockas, Melanie G., and Grigorenko, Elena L.. 1997. ‘Getting In: Criteria for Acceptance of Manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin, 1993–1996’. Psychological Bulletin 121 (2): 321–3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.321.
Suber, Peter, Brown, Patrick O., Cabell, Diane, Chakravarti, Aravinda, Cohen, Barbara, Delamothe, Tony, Eisen, Michael, et al. 2003. ‘Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing’. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199.
Sugimoto, Cassidy R., and Cronin, Blaise. 2013. ‘Citation Gamesmanship: Testing for Evidence of Ego Bias in Peer Review’. Scientometrics 95 (3): 851–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, John M., and Feak, Christine B.. 2000. English in Today’s Research World: A Writing Guide. Michigan Series in English for Academic & Professional Purposes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tang, Jingwei. 2013. ‘Pragmatic Functions of Hedges and Politeness Principles’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 2 (4): 155–60. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2 n.4p.155.
Tattersall, Andy. 2015. ‘For What It’s Worth – the Open Peer Review Landscape’. Online Information Review 39 (5): 649–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182.
Tennant, Jonathan, and Ross-Hellauer., Tony 2019. ‘The Limitations to Our Understanding of Peer Review’. SocArXiv, August. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/jq623.
Tewksbury, Richard, and Mustaine, Elizabeth Ehrhardt. 2012. ‘Cracking Open the Black Box of the Manuscript Review Process: A Look Inside Justice Quarterly’. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 23 (4): 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.653650.
The Editors of The New Atlantis. 2006. ‘Rethinking Peer Review’. The New Atlantis, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review.
Travis, G.D.L., and Collins, H.M.. 1991. ‘New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System’. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16 (3): 322–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600303.
Tregenza, Tom. 2002. ‘Gender Bias in the Refereeing Process?’ Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17 (8): 349–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02545-4.
Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 4th ed. London: Penguin.
Tsang, Eric W.K. 2013. ‘Is This Referee Really My Peer? A Challenge to the Peer-Review Process’. Journal of Management Inquiry 22 (2): 166–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612461306.
Turcotte, Claudine, Drolet, Pierre, and Girard, Michel. 2004. ‘Study Design, Originality and Overall Consistency Influence Acceptance or Rejection of Manuscripts Submitted to the Journal’. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadien d’anesthésie 51 (6): 549–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03018396.
Underwood, Ted. 2017. ‘A Genealogy of Distant Reading’. Digital Humanities Quarterly 11 (2). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/2/000317/000317.html.
Underwood, Ted. 2019. Distant Horizons: Digital Evidence and Literary Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
van Arensbergen, Pleun, van der Weijden, Inge, and van den Besselaar, Peter. 2014. ‘The Selection of Talent as a Group Process. A Literature Review on the Social Dynamics of Decision Making in Grant Panels’. Research Evaluation 23 (4): 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu017.
van den Besselaar, Peter, Sandström, Ulf, and Schiffbaenker, Hélène. 2018. ‘Studying Grant Decision-Making: A Linguistic Analysis of Review Reports’. Scientometrics 117 (1): 313–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x.
van den Besselaar, Peter, Schiffbaenker, Hélène, Sandström, Ulf, and Mom, Charlie. 2018. ‘Explaining Gender Bias in ERC Grant Selection – Life Sciences Case’. In STI 2018 Conference Proceedings, 346–52. Leiden University.
van Rooyen, Susan, Delamothe, Tony, and Evans, Stephen J.W.. 2010. ‘Effect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers That Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial’. British Medical Journal 341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729.
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., and Smith, R.. 1999. ‘Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial’. British Medical Journal 318 (7175): 23–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
Varmus, Harold. 2009. The Art and Politics of Science. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Varttala, Teppo. 2001. ‘Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience’. PhD, Tampere: University of Tampere.
Von Bergen, C. W. Bressler, Martin S., and Campbell, Kitty. 2014. ‘The Sandwich Feedback Method: Not Very Tasty’. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business 7.
Wakefield, A.J., Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D.M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., et al. 1998. ‘RETRACTED: Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children’. The Lancet 351 (9103): 637–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.
Wang, Qi, and Ulf, Sandström. 2015. ‘Defining the Role of Cognitive Distance in the Peer Review Process with an Explorative Study of a Grant Scheme in Infection Biology’. Research Evaluation 24 (3): 271–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv009.
Ware, Mark. 2011. ‘Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions’. New Review of Information Networking 16 (1): 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812.
Weller, Ann C. 2001. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Willinsky, John. 2009. ‘The Stratified Economics of Open Access’. Economic Analysis and Policy 39 (1): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50043-4.
Wilson, Andrew. 2011. ‘Failing to Replicate Bem’s Ability to Get Published in a Major Journal’. Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists. May 7. http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/05/failing-to-replicate-bems-ability-to.html.
Woods, Peter. 2006. Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Yong, Ed. 2012a. ‘Nobel Laureate Challenges Psychologists to Clean up Their Act’. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11535.
Yong, Ed. 2012b. ‘A Failed Replication Draws a Scathing Personal Attack from a Psychology Professor’. Not Exactly Rocket Science. March 10. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/#.VsZpH0Leezc.
Yong, Ed. 2012c. ‘Replication Studies: Bad Copy’. Nature 485 (7398): 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a.
Yong, Ed. 2012d. ‘Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman Calls for “Daisy Chain” of Psychology Replications’. Phenomena. October 4, 2012. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/04/daniel-kahneman-daisy-chain-replications-priming-psychology/.
Zaharie, Monica Aniela, and Seeber, Marco. 2018. ‘Are Non-Monetary Rewards Effective in Attracting Peer Reviewers? A Natural Experiment’. Scientometrics 117 (3): 1587–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2912-6.
Zuckerman, Harriet, and Merton, Robert K.. 1971. ‘Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System’. Minerva 9 (1): 66–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188.
Zwiers, Michael L., and Morrissette, Patrick J.. 1999. Effective Interviewing of Children: A Comprehensive Guide for Counselors and Human Service Workers. Philadelphia, PA: Accelerated Development.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.