Errors in science: the role of reviewers

Szekely T, Krüger O, Krause ET (2014)
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 371-373.

Journal Article | Published | English

No fulltext has been uploaded

Abstract
Reviewers play a key role in science, although studies suggest the current peer-reviewing system has faults. We propose to introduce a quality control system to evaluate each journal’s review process, and produce a Review Quality Index. We propose four schemes that have the potential to reduce errors in a key step in scientific decision making: the reviewing process.
Publishing Year
ISSN
PUB-ID

Cite this

Szekely T, Krüger O, Krause ET. Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2014;29:371-373.
Szekely, T., Krüger, O., & Krause, E. T. (2014). Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 371-373.
Szekely, T., Krüger, O., and Krause, E. T. (2014). Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29, 371-373.
Szekely, T., Krüger, O., & Krause, E.T., 2014. Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, p 371-373.
T. Szekely, O. Krüger, and E.T. Krause, “Errors in science: the role of reviewers”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 29, 2014, pp. 371-373.
Szekely, T., Krüger, O., Krause, E.T.: Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 29, 371-373 (2014).
Szekely, Tamas, Krüger, Oliver, and Krause, E. Tobias. “Errors in science: the role of reviewers”. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29 (2014): 371-373.
This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

3 Citations in Europe PMC

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

How to Maintain Ecological Relevance in Ecology.
van Grunsven RH, Liefting M., Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 30(10), 2015
PMID: 26411610
Opening Pandora's box: cause and impact of errors on plant pigment studies.
Fernandez-Marin B, Artetxe U, Barrutia O, Esteban R, Hernandez A, Garcia-Plazaola JI., Front Plant Sci 6(), 2015
PMID: 25815000
How to review a scientific paper.
Tandon R., Asian J Psychiatr 11(), 2014
PMID: 25248566

7 References

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

Editorial rejects? Novelty, schnovelty!
Arnqvist G., Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 28(8), 2013
PMID: 23684957
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
Park, Nature 506(), 2013
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM., PLoS ONE 5(4), 2010
PMID: 20386704
The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL., PLoS ONE 6(7), 2011
PMID: 21799867
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial
van, Br. Med. J. 318(), 1999
Transparency showcases strength of peer review.
Pulverer B., Nature 468(7320), 2010
PMID: 21048742
The nature of human altruism.
Fehr E, Fischbacher U., Nature 425(6960), 2003
PMID: 14574401

Export

0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®

Sources

PMID: 24875588
PubMed | Europe PMC

Search this title in

Google Scholar