Talk:State Of The Art/Peer review and review metrics

From LiquidPubWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

References

Suggest references for the report here, and move them to the main article as they are cited in the text.

http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/previous.html — past peer review congresses.

Peer review and scholarly practice

  • Drenth, J. P. H. (1998) Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. JAMA 280(3): 219–221.
  • Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D. & Rennie, D. (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 280(3): 222–224.
  • Fletcher, R. H. & Fletcher, S. W. (1997) Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Sci. Eng. Ethics 3: 35–50.
  • Horton, R. (2002) The hidden research paper. JAMA 287(21): 2775–2778.
  • Laine, C. & Mulrow, C. (2003) Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Ann. Internal Med. 139(12): 1038–1040.
  • Landkroon, A. P., Euser, A. M., Veeken, H., Hart, W. & Overbeke, A. J. P. M. (2006) Quality assessment of reviewers’ reports using a simple instrument. Obstet. Gynecol. 108(4): 979–985.
  • Lock, S. (1994) Does editorial peer review work? Ann. Intern. Med. 121(1): 60–61.
  • Merton, R. K. (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 22(6): 635–659.
  • Merton, R. K. (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159: 56–63.
  • Misakian, A. L. & Bero, L. A. (1998) Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA 280(3): 250–253.
  • Rothwell, P. M. & Martyn, C. N. (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123: 1964–1969.
  • Wilcox, L. J. (1998) Authorship: the coin of the realm, the source of complaints. JAMA 280(3): 216–217.

Research assessment metrics & citation analysis

  • Bergstrom, C. (2007) Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. Coll. Res. Libr. News 68(5)
  • Brody, T., Harnad, S. & Carr, L. (2006) Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. JASIST 57(8): 1060–1072.
  • Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1) [multiple papers]
  • Evans, J. A. (2008) Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321: 395–399.
  • JASIST 57(8) [special issue on the role of journal articles in diffusion of scholarly knowledge]
  • Joseph, K. S. (2003) Quality of impact factors of general medical journals. BMJ 326: 283. [See also responses.]
  • Joseph, K. S. & Hoey, J. (1999) CMAJ’s impact factor: room for recalculation. CMAJ 161(8): 977–978.
  • Seglen, P. O. (1992) The skewness of science. JASIS 43(9): 628–638.

New directions in publication

  • Swan, A. (2007) Open access and the progress of science. Amer. Scient. 95: 198–200.
  • Swan, A. & Brown, S. (2004) Authors and open access publishing. Learn. Publ. 17: 219–224.
  • Swan, A. et al. (2005) Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher education. Learn. Publ. 18: 25–40.
  • Taylor, M., Perakakis, P. & Trachana, V. (2008) The siege of science. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 8(1): 17–40. doi:10.3354/esep00086

Information filtering & recommender systems

  • Bennet, J. & Lanning, S. (2007) The Netflix prize. Proc. KDDCup’07.
  • Bridge, D., Göker, M. H., McGinty, L. & Smyth, B. (2006) Case-based recommender systems. Know. Eng. Rev. 20(3): 315–320.
  • Burke, R. (2007) Hybrid web recommender systems. LNCS 4321: 377–408.
  • Claypool, M., Le, P., Wased, M. & Brown, D. (2001) Implicit interest indicators. Proc. IUI’01: 33–40.
  • Goldberg, D., Nichols, D., Oki, B. M. & Terry, D. (1992) Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Commun. ACM 35(12): 61–70.
  • Laureti, P., Mathiesen, J. & Zhang, Y.-C. (2004) Selection by pairwise comparison with limited resources. Physica A 338: 596–604. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2004.03.023
  • Laureti, P., Moret, L. & Zhang, Y.-C. (2005) Aggregating partial, local evaluations to achieve global ranking. Physica A 345: 705–712. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2004.08.012
  • McGinty, L. & Smyth, B. (2002) Comparison-based recommendation. Lect. Not. Artif. Intel. 2416: 575–589.
  • McNee, S. M., Albert, I. Cosley, D., Gopalkrishnan, P., Lam, S. K., Rashid, A. M., Konstan, J. A. & Riedl, J. (2002) On the recommending of citations for research papers. Proc. CSCW’02: 116–125.
  • Resnick, P. & Varian, H. R. (1997) Recommender systems. Commun. ACM 40(3): 56–58.
  • Rosvall, M. & Bergstrom, C. T. (2008) Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. PNAS 105(4): 1118–1123. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706851105
  • Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J. & Sen, S. (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. LNCS 4321: 291–324.
  • Yu, Y.-K., Zhang, Y.-C., Laureti, P. & Moret, L. (2006) Decoding information from noisy, redundant and intentionally distorted sources. Physica A 371: 732–744. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.04.057
  • Ziegler, C.-N. (2004) Semantic web recommender systems. LNCS 3268: 78–89.

Web 2.0, FOSS, general new stuff

  • Pico, A. R., Kelder, T., van Iersel, M. P., Hanspers, K., Conklin, B. R. & Evelo, C. (2008) WikiPathways: pathway editing for the people. PLoS Biol. 6(7): e184. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060184
  • Rosenzweig, R. (2006) Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. J. Amer. Hist. 93(1): 117–146.
  • Spinellis, D. & Louridas, P. (2008) The collaborative organization of knowledge. Commun. ACM 51(8): 68–73.
  • Taraborelli, D. (2008) Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Proc. COOP’08.

Testing the Bibwiki functionality

BibWiki functionality generates nasty errors! :-O

New peer review directions

An interesting suggestion by Yi-Kuo Yu: http://www.biology-direct.com/info/about/

Retrieved from "http://wiki.liquidpub.org/mediawiki/index.php/Talk:State_Of_The_Art/Peer_review_and_review_metrics"