The Scientific Library: Resources for Authors: Peer Review Resources

Peer Review Resources

F1000 Research - details of initial plan at http://f1000research.com/2012/01/30/f1000-research-join-us-and-shape-the-future-of-scholarly-communication-2/. The plan is to experiment with opening up the formal peer review process to avoid many problems with peer review, including not knowing whether an article has been rejected numerous times before finally being accepted in a 'peer-reviewed' journal to provide scientists with an alternative to existing journal publishing models and will address four issues:

Speed. Immediate publication, following a brief internal review; all submissions will initially be labelled as 'awaiting peer review'.
Peer review. Submissions will go into a rapid, formal, and open peer review process post-publication to eliminate delays and injustices that often arise in the standard closed peer review system.
Research types. A variety of types of research findings will be accepted, from traditional articles to null/negative findings, to replicate/refutation findings.
Primary data. Sharing, publication and refereeing of datasets, in the form of separate data papers, to foster collaboration and accelerate scientific discovery.

Nature article - "There's a time to be critical," Nature 473 (19 May) 253, 2011 DOI: doi:10.1038/473253a Published online 18 May 2011. Abstract: "An accusation that referees are too demanding and editors too supine demands a response. Authors, editors and referees all have lessons to learn."
Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future (PDF) A Project Report and its Associated Recommendations, Proceedings from a Meeting, and Background Papers. Future of Scholarly Communication, University of California Berkeley, Centers for Studies in Higher Education. March 2011.
Retraction Watch - Launched in August 2010, this retraction blog is written by 2 medical reporters. When covering a retraction, they aim to address: how much time goes by before writing the retraction; what action requires a retraction; how much of a public announcement, if any, is made; does a journal with a low rate of retractions have a better peer review and editing process, or is it just not reporting the mistakes. They hope this will form the basis of larger discussions of the obligations of journals. Both writers have experience covering science and medicine for the consumer as well as trade press and seem to come across these issues often. While any particular Retraction Watch post will only carry one of their bylines, they will both contribute to all posts. See Retraction Watch FAQ.