Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 208–219. doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4.
Article
Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.
Google Scholar
Allison, D. B., Brown, A. W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530, 27–29.
Article
Google Scholar
ATS (The Annals of Thoracic Surgery). (2017). Guidelines for reviewers (and authors). http://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/ats/reviewerguidelines.pdf. 27 October, 2016.
Barbash, F. (2015). Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/. 27 October, 2016.
Bartoli, A., De Lorenzo, A., Medvet, E., & Tarlao, F. (2016). Your paper has been accepted, rejected, or whatever: Automatic generation of scientific paper reviews. In Availability, Reliability, and Security in Information Systems. (Vol. 9817 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 19–28). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45507-5.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013345.
Article
Google Scholar
Callaway, E. (2015). Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions. Nature,. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202.
Google Scholar
Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters,. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw115.
Google Scholar
Earnshaw, J. J., Farndon, J. R., Guillou, P. J., Johnson, C. D., Murie, J. A., & Murray, G. D. (2000). A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 82, 133–135.
Google Scholar
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.
Article
Google Scholar
Giordan, M., Csikasz-Nagy, A., Collings, A. M., & Vaggi, F. (2016). The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Research, 5, 683. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8452.2.
Article
Google Scholar
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud: Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
Article
Google Scholar
Helton, M. L., & Balistreri, W. F. (2011). Peering into peer-review. Journal of Pediatrics, 159(1), 150–151. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.02.012.
Article
Google Scholar
HLC (Higher Learning Commission). (2016). Determining qualified faculty through HLC’s criteria for accreditation and assumed practices. Guidelines for institutions and peer reviewers. http://download.hlcommission.org/FacultyGuidelines_2016_OPB.pdf. 27 October, 2016.
Korkmaz, S. A. (2017). Retraction notice to “Diagnosis of cervical cancer cell taken from scanning electron and atomic force microscope images of the same patients using discrete wavelet entropy energy and Jensen Shannon, Hellinger, Triangle Measure classifier” [SAA 160 (2016) 39–49]. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 170, 267. doi:10.1016/j.saa.2016.06.019.
Article
Google Scholar
Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., Patel, J., & Moylan, E. C. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 5(9), e008707. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707.
Article
Google Scholar
Kumar, M. (2009). A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4), 16.
Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
Article
Google Scholar
Luo, L., & Rubens, F. D. (2016). Traditional peer review and post-publication peer review. Perfusion, 31(6), 443–444. doi:10.1177/0267659116667265.
Article
Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2015). The importance of ethical peer-review: Why do we ask authors to suggest reviewers anyway? Lipids, 50, 1165–1167. doi:10.1007/s11745-015-4094-9.
Article
Google Scholar
Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a.
Article
Google Scholar
Reller, T. (2016). Elsevier publishing— a look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-publishing-a-look-at-the-numbers-and-more. 27 October, 2016.
Resnik, D. B. (2011). A troubled tradition: It’s time to rebuild trust among authors, editors and peer reviewers. American Scientist, 99(1), 24. doi:10.1511/2011.88.24.
Article
Google Scholar
Rivara, F. P., Cummings, P., Ringold, S., Bergman, A. B., Joffe, A., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. Journal of Pediatrics, 151(2), 202–205. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008.
Article
Google Scholar
Scholarone (2012). Thomson Reuters Quantifies Asia’s Rise in Global Submission Rates to Academic Publishers. http://scholarone.com/about/press/globalsubrelease/. 27 October, 2016.
Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 314–317. doi:10.1001/jama.295.3.314.
Article
Google Scholar
Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112, 360–365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112.
Article
Google Scholar
Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120838. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120838.
Article
Google Scholar
Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine, 12, 179. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
Article
Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), 6–15.
Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética 20(2): (in press).
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine, 1(2), 214–215. doi:10.1515/jim-2016-0031.
Article
Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2016). Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME, 4(1), 84–88. doi:10.17646/KOME.2016.16. (with erratum).
Article
Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(1), 22–40. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.
Article
Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Katavić, V. (2016). Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics (in press).
Tonks, A. (1995). Reviewers chosen by authors. British Medical Journal, 311, 210. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6999.210.
Article
Google Scholar
Wager, E., Parkin, E. C., & Tamber, P. S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4, 13. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-4-13.
Article
Google Scholar
Warne, V. (2015). Peer review week arrives! https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2015/09/28/peer-review-week-arrives?referrer=exchanges. 27 October, 2016.