7 - Deploying the Electronic Edge in the Peer Review of Scholarly Publications
Corresponding Author(s) : Nwagwu, E. Williams
Africa Media Review,
Vol. 15 No. 1-2 (2007): Africa Media Review, Volume 15, n° 1 & 2, 2007
Abstract
This paper traces the origin and evolution of the traditional peer review system, and shows its strengths and weaknesses, which arise mainly due to the effects of human factors in the management of activities involved. An automated nonblinded open peer review system is recommended considering the versatility of the information and communication technologies and the modern openness culture in scholarly communication. This new system will improve the participation of developing countries’ scholars in the review of scientific papers published in the mainstream journals, and thereby enhance their contribution in the international science scene.
Keywords
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)BibTeX
- Akhigbe, O. O., 1989, ‘Health Information Network (HIN) for Nigeria: A Proposal’, Paper presented at the 2nd Biennial Congress of African Medical Library Association (AMLA), WHO, Afro Brazzaville, Congo, 12-16 June 1989.
- Altman, L. K., 1994, ‘The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes, and Journal Peer Review— Part 1’, Lancet, 347, pp. 1382-1386.
- Altman, L. K., 1996, ‘The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes and Journal Peer Review — Part 2’, Lancet, 347, pp. 1459-1463.
- Burnham, J.C., 1990, ‘The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review’, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), 263, pp. 1323-1329.
- Cameron, R. D., 1997, ‘A Universal Citation Database as a Catalyst for Reform in Scholarly Communication’, First Monday (Availablehttp://www.firstmonday.org/ issues/issue2_4/cameron/). Cho, M. K., Justice, A. C., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Waeckerle, J.F., Callaham, M.L. and Rennie, D., 1990, ‘Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking and the Peer Investigators’ Success?’ JAMA 280, pp. 240-245.
- Eisenstein, E., 1979, ‘The Book of Nature Transformed: Introduction: Problems of Periodisation’, in The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe, Vol. 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- El-Munshid, H., 2001, ‘Editorial Evaluation of Peer Review in Biomedical Publication’, Annals of Saudi Medicine, 21(5-6), pp. 271-275.
- Ernst, E. 2000, ‘Are Reviewers Biased against Unconventional Therapy?’ The Scientist, Vol. 14, No. 21, p. 6.
- Fisher, M., Friedman and Strauss, B., 1994, ‘The Effect of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), 272, pp. 143-146.
- Flanagin, A., Carey, L., Fontanasora, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., G. D. Lundberg, G. D. and Rennie, D., 1998, ‘Prevalence of Articles with Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer Reviewed Medical Journals’, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) , 280, p. 223.
- Foucault, M., 1977, ‘What Is an Author?’, in D. B. Bouchard, ed., Language, Counter Memory Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, pp. 113-138.
- Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J. and Lawson, E. E., 1994, ‘Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers’ Recommendations and Editorial Decisions’, 272, pp. 137-138.
- Gilbert, J. R., Williams, E. S., Lundberg, G. D., 1994, ‘Is There Gender Bias in JAMA’s Peer Review Process?’ JAMA, 272, pp.139-142.
- Gibbs, W. W., 1995, ‘Lost Science in the Third World’, Scientific American (August), pp. 76-83.
References
Akhigbe, O. O., 1989, ‘Health Information Network (HIN) for Nigeria: A Proposal’, Paper presented at the 2nd Biennial Congress of African Medical Library Association (AMLA), WHO, Afro Brazzaville, Congo, 12-16 June 1989.
Altman, L. K., 1994, ‘The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes, and Journal Peer Review— Part 1’, Lancet, 347, pp. 1382-1386.
Altman, L. K., 1996, ‘The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes and Journal Peer Review — Part 2’, Lancet, 347, pp. 1459-1463.
Burnham, J.C., 1990, ‘The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review’, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), 263, pp. 1323-1329.
Cameron, R. D., 1997, ‘A Universal Citation Database as a Catalyst for Reform in Scholarly Communication’, First Monday (Availablehttp://www.firstmonday.org/ issues/issue2_4/cameron/). Cho, M. K., Justice, A. C., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Waeckerle, J.F., Callaham, M.L. and Rennie, D., 1990, ‘Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking and the Peer Investigators’ Success?’ JAMA 280, pp. 240-245.
Eisenstein, E., 1979, ‘The Book of Nature Transformed: Introduction: Problems of Periodisation’, in The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe, Vol. 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
El-Munshid, H., 2001, ‘Editorial Evaluation of Peer Review in Biomedical Publication’, Annals of Saudi Medicine, 21(5-6), pp. 271-275.
Ernst, E. 2000, ‘Are Reviewers Biased against Unconventional Therapy?’ The Scientist, Vol. 14, No. 21, p. 6.
Fisher, M., Friedman and Strauss, B., 1994, ‘The Effect of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), 272, pp. 143-146.
Flanagin, A., Carey, L., Fontanasora, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., G. D. Lundberg, G. D. and Rennie, D., 1998, ‘Prevalence of Articles with Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer Reviewed Medical Journals’, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) , 280, p. 223.
Foucault, M., 1977, ‘What Is an Author?’, in D. B. Bouchard, ed., Language, Counter Memory Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, pp. 113-138.
Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J. and Lawson, E. E., 1994, ‘Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers’ Recommendations and Editorial Decisions’, 272, pp. 137-138.
Gilbert, J. R., Williams, E. S., Lundberg, G. D., 1994, ‘Is There Gender Bias in JAMA’s Peer Review Process?’ JAMA, 272, pp.139-142.
Gibbs, W. W., 1995, ‘Lost Science in the Third World’, Scientific American (August), pp. 76-83.