Scientific peer review

By Lutz Bornmann. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2011

501 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aeaea89e5d1799f0e6ff851c5625c22c15e44176

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Is Peer Review a Good Idea? (2020, background): “This can indeed lead to improvements (Bornmann [2011], p.”
A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015, methodology): “In the past, to the extent that this occurred it did so through a process of peer review with the obvious drawbacks of subjectivity, favouritism and conservatism (Bornmann, 2011; Irvine et al., 1985).”
Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics (2014, background): “Results based on altmetrics must therefore not lead directly to decisions about research funding, but should be used to help experts to make decisions in a peer review process (Bornmann, 2011; Rousseau & Ye, 2013).”
Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2014, background): “Add to this the explosion in publishing numbers linked to external factors in the past decades, related to the “Audit Society” and “New Public Management,” with “salami sliced publishing” (Bornmann & Daniel, 2007). Not to mention that at least during the first 100 years of publishing in Philosophica”
Bias in peer review (2013, unknown): “…Spier, 2002); the growing body of empirical and meta-analytic research on the reliability and predictive validity of the peer review process (e.g., Bornmann, 2011a, 2011b; Peters & Ceci, 1982a), including the various kinds of presumptive biases (e.g., institutional, gender, cognitive) associated…”
Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019, background): “While some studies have found a positive correlation between funding and citation impact, others have questioned whether grant peer review and citation impact are correlated (Bornmann, 2011).”
Who publishes in “predatory” journals? (2015, background): “Lax control of publication quality is not unique to OA; rather, it is a problem that has been in existence in scholarly communication for a long time (Bornmann, 2011; Lee, Sugimoto, Zhang, & Cronin, 2013).”
What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey (2013, background): “Other short overviews were published by Frank and Nason (2009; focusing on the area of health research) and Bornmann (2012). The objective is for this overview to serve as a basis for the development of a conceptual framework and the identification of a potentially fruitful research agenda for socie”
Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal (2016, background): “Biases in scientific gatekeeping, particularly during editorial and peer review, may contribute to gender disparity, perceived or real, in scholarly publishing (Bornmann 2011; Siler, Lee & Bero 2015).”