Peer review: types, pitfalls and controversies

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 15 (1):9-15 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Peer review has been adopted by most journals to evaluate the quality of submitted manuscripts, for which peer reviewers aim to provide a critical, independent and unbiased assessment. Peer review is ever evolving, with no single peer review system being perfect currently. This review article aims to give a broad overview of the various types of peer review, their advantages, pitfalls, and some related controversies.

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.62865/bjbio.v15i1.106

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.
A review on a peer review.Andrej Poleev - 2016 - Enzymes 14.
Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Low and high-impact-factor journals: which has better peer review quality?Minh-Hoang Nguyen - 2022 - SM3D Portal.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review.Turner Leigh - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Peering, viewing and reviewing: What makes a Peer review good. Mohini & Sakir Ahmed - 2022 - Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 3 (2):119-124.
Promoting F.A.I.T.h. In Peer review: Five core attributes of effective Peer review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? the challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies.Vasiliki Mollaki - 2024 - Research Ethics 20 (2):239-250.
Jury Theorems for Peer Review.Marcus Arvan, Liam Kofi Bright & Remco Heesen - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Peer-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?José G. B. Derraik - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):825-828.
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-04-22

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references