Misuse of the peer-review system: time for countermeasures?

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2003

• Venue

  Marine Ecology Progress Series

• Publication date

  2003-08-29

• Fields of study

  Biology, Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.3354/MEPS258297
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Fifth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication

  2003cited by this paper
• The scientific process: new forces attempt to enter the scene.

  2003cited by this paper
• Electronic publishing in science:changes and risks

  1999cited by this paper
• How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.

  1994cited by this paper
• The evolution of editorial peer review.

  1990cited by this paper
• Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.

  1990cited by this paper
• The scientific process — its links, functions and problems

  1988cited by this paper

• Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer

  2018cites this paper
• The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

  2016cites this paper
• Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion

  2015cites this paper
• Imbalance in Individual Researcher's Peer Review Activities Quantified for Four British Ecological Society Journals, 2003-2010

  2014cites this paper
• Type I error is unlikely to hinder review recycling: a reply to Montesinos

  2012cites this paper
• Bad data equals bad policy: how to trust estimates of ecosystem loss when there is so much uncertainty?

  2011cites this paper
• Towards Scholarly Communication 2.0: Peer-to-Peer Review & Ranking in Open Access Preprint Repositories

  2010cites this paper
• The multiple faces of journal peer review

  2010cites this paper
• Pubcreds: Fixing the Peer Review Process by “Privatizing” the Reviewer Commons

  2010cites this paper
• Progress in marine ecosystem modelling and the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”

  2010cites this paper
• Introducing Aquatic Biology

  2007cites this paper
• Is Peer Review a Game of Chance?

  2006cites this paper
• Quality in science publishing Idea and coordination :

  2004cites this paper
• Quality in science publishing

  2004cites this paper