Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry Cover

Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

Ethics & Bioethics
Volume 6 (2016): Issue 3-4 (December 2016)
By: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and  Vedran Katavić  
Open Access
|Dec 2016

References

  1. ARNS, M. (2014): Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. In: Nature, 515(7528), p. 467.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. BEALL, J. (2016): Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. In: Nature, 534(7607), p. 326.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. BELLUZ, J., PLUMER, B. & RESNICK, B. (2016): The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. CALLAWAY, E. (2016): Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. In: Nature, 535(7611), pp. 210–211.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. CMJ (Croatian Medical Journal) (2016): About Journal. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://cmj.hr/default.aspx?id=26
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. CORNELIUSSEN, S.T. (2015): Should journals pay peer reviewers $50 per hour? In: Physics Today. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8092
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. CSISZAR, A. (2016): Troubled form the start. In: Nature, 532(7599), pp. 306–308.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. DADKHAH, M., MALISZEWSKI, T. & TEIXEIRA da SILVA, J. A. (2016): Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. In: Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 12(3), pp. 353–362.10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. eLIFE (2016): About. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://elifesciences.org/about
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. FERREIRA, C., BASTILLE-ROUSSEAU, G., BENNETT, A. M., ELLINGTON, E. H., TERWISSEN, C., AUSTIN, C., BORLESTEAN, A., BOUDREAU, M. R., CHAN, K., FORSYTHE, A., HOSSIE, T. J., LANDOLT, K., LONGHI, J., OTIS, J.-A., PEERS, M. J. L., RAE, J., SEGUIN, J., WATT, C., WEHTJE, M. & MURRAY, D. L. (2016): The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? In: Biological Reviews, 91(3), pp. 597–610.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. GARG, P.K. (2015): Financial incentives to reviewers: double-edged sword. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(6), pp. 832–833.10.3346/jkms.2015.30.6.832
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. GASPARYAN, A. Y., GERASIMOV, A. N., VORONOV, A. A. & KITAS, G. D. (2015a): Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(4), pp. 360–364.10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. GASPARYAN, A. Y., GERASIMOV, A. N., VORONOV, A. A. & KITAS, G. D. (2015b): Combined rewarding mechanisms can be implemented to incentivize the best reviewers. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(6), pp. 832–833.10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) (2016): Instructions for authors of JMIR. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://www.jmir.org/content/author-instructions#Fast-track
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. LARIVIÈRE, V., HAUSTEIN, S. & MONGEON, P. (2015): The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. In: PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. NATURE EDITORIAL (2014): Review rewards. In: Nature, 514(7522), p. 274.10.1038/514274a
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. OPEN ACCESS DIRECTORY (2016): OA journal business models. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. PUBLISHOPENACCESS (2016): Online platforms for recruiting and motivating reviewers. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.jp/2016/01/online-platforms-for-recruiting-and.html
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. PUBLONS (2016): Reviving Peer Review. Speeding Up Science. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://prw.publons.com/
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. SCHEKMAN, R. (2013): How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. SCHUKLENK, U. (2015): On peer review. In: Bioethics, 29(2), pp. ii–iii.10.1111/bioe.12158
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. SPIER, R. (2002): The history of the peer-review process. In: Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), pp. 357–358.10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. SÜDHOF, T.C. (2016): Truth in science publishing: a personal perspective. In: PLoS Biology, 14(8), e1002547.10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. TEIXEIRA da SILVA, J.A. (2013a): Taxing the intellectual base: should authors foot the publishing bill? In: The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), pp. 111–113.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. TEIXEIRA da SILVA, J.A. (2013b): Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. In: The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), pp. 6–15.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. THÉRÈSE, S. & MARTIN, B. (2010): Shame, scientist! Degradation rituals in science. In: Prometheus, 28(2), pp. 97–110.10.1080/08109028.2010.494866
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. THE COST OF KNOWLEDGE (2016). [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://thecostofknowledge.com/
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. THE TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (2016): How long will goodwill in academia last? [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/how-long-will-goodwill-in-academia-last
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. THE OPEN SCHOLARSHIP INITIATIVE (2016): Elsevier Awarded U.S. Patent for “Online Peer Review System and Method”. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/4REh5gD5Zko/4ZVnBrToAQAJ
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. TITE, L. & SCHROTER, S. (2007): Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. In: Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 61(1), pp. 9–12.10.1136/jech.2006.049817
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011 | Journal eISSN: 2453-7829 | Journal ISSN: 1338-5615
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 203 - 209
Published on: Dec 28, 2016
Published by: University of Prešov
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
academic publishing,
exploitation,
fairness,
peer review
Related subjects:
Philosophy,
Ethics,
Applied ethics,
Bio ethics and ethics of medicine, ethics of science,
Business ethics,
Ethics of ecology,
Applied ethics, other

© 2016 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Vedran Katavić, published by University of Prešov
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 6 (2016): Issue 3-4 (December 2016)