Scholarly peer review

peer reviewpeer-reviewedrefereeddouble-blind peer reviewOpen Peer Commentarypost-publication peer reviewpeer reviewedpeer-reviewacademic peer reviewAnonymous peer review
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.wikipedia
221 Related Articles

Henry Oldenburg

OldenburgHenry (Heinrich) Oldenburg
The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.
1619 as Heinrich Oldenburg – 5 September 1677) was a German theologian known as a diplomat, a natural philosopher and as the creator of scientific peer review.

Peer review

peer-reviewedpeer-reviewpeer reviewed
Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review.
In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

Philosophical TransactionsTransactions of the Royal SocietyPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.
The familiar functions of the scientific journal – registration (date stamping and provenance), certification (peer review), dissemination and archiving − were introduced at inception by Philosophical Transactions.

Metascience

Meta-researchEvidence-based researchevidence-based
Meta-research has identified weaknesses in common peer review practices, leading critics to argue for reform. Researchers within the fields of metascience and journalology work to produce such reform.
There are continuing efforts to reduce the misuse of statistics, to eliminate perverse incentives from academia, to improve the peer review process, to combat bias in scientific literature, and to increase the overall quality and efficiency of the scientific process.

Proceedings

conference proceedingsproceedingconference proceeding
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.
The level of quality control varies considerably from conference to conference: some have only a binary accept/reject decision, others go through more thorough feedback and revisions cycles (peer reviewing or refereeing).

Scientific journal

journalmathematics journalscientific journals
Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author, though a referee can also send 'for your eyes only' comments to the publisher; scientific journals observe this convention almost universally.
Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.

ArXiv

arXiv.orgArXiv.org e-print archivearXiv id
Manuscripts are typically reviewed by colleagues before submission, and if the manuscript is uploaded to preprint servers, such as ArXiv, BioRxiv or SSRN, researchers can read and comment on the manuscript.
arXiv (pronounced "archive"—the X represents the Greek letter chi [χ]) is a repository of electronic preprints (known as e-prints) approved for posting after moderation, but not full peer review.

Journalology

Researchers within the fields of metascience and journalology work to produce such reform.
Journalology researchers also work to reform the peer review process.

Letter to the editor

letters to the editorLettersletter
Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club.
Some journals request open commentaries as a matter of course, which are published together with the original paper, and any authors' reply, in a process called open peer commentary.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Behav Brain Sci
The journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, was founded by Stevan Harnad in 1978 and modeled on Current Anthropology's open peer commentary feature.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of Open Peer Commentary established in 1978 by Stevan Harnad and published by Cambridge University Press.

Gatekeeper

gatekeepersgatekeepingGate Keeper
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.
Peer review is a practice widely used by specialized journals that publish articles reporting new research, new discoveries, or new analyses in a specific academic field or area of focus.

Predatory publishing

Predatory open access publishingpredatory journalspredatory open-access publishers
There have been instances where peer review was claimed to be performed but in fact was not; this has been documented in some predatory open access journals (e.g., the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? affair) or in the case of sponsored Elsevier journals.
More transparent peer review, such as open peer review and post-publication peer review, has been advocated to combat predatory journals.

Faculty of 1000

F1000F1000ResearchF1000 Research
Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there are several examples of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.

Retractions in academic publishing

retractionretractedretract
When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted.

Open science data

dataopen dataopenness
In an effort to address issues with the reproducibility of research results, some scholars are asking that authors agree to share their raw data as part of the peer review process.
In an effort to address issues with the reproducibility of research results, some scholars are asking that authors agree to share their raw data as part of the scholarly peer review process.

Scholarly method

scholarscholarlyscholars
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.

Idea

brainchildideasconcept
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.

Expert

expertiseexpertsspecialist
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.

Academic journal

journaljournalsacademic journals
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.

Editor-in-chief

editors-in-chiefeditor in chiefeditor
The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

Editorial board

editorial boardseditorial advisory boardBoard of Editors
The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

Open peer review

public peer reviewopen peer-reviewopen peer-reviewed
Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there are several examples of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.

ELife

e-Life
Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there are several examples of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.

Royal Society

FRSRoyal Society of LondonThe Royal Society
The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.