74 Chapter 10
10.6 Conclusions
Peer review has evolved significantly since it was first introduced in the mid-
eighteenth century,
13,14
and it continues to evolve today. Technology has
drastically sped the process, with email, web-based submissions, and online
publishing. Search-engine-style document comparisons do a reasonable job of
detecting plagiarism. But in the end, it is the careful reading of a manuscript by
editors and expert reviewers that makes the whole process work. Science is a
human endeavor, with the scientific quality dependent on the attitude, training, and
work ethic of the scientists involved. Likewise, scientific journal publishing
depends on the efforts of well-trained and hardworking scientists and engineers
who choose to give back to their scientific community by volunteering for their
journal.
References
1
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Recommendations for the Conduct,
Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals” (2014).
2
I. Hames, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals,
ALPSP/Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA (2007).
3
Committee on Publication Ethics, “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for
Journal Editors”, version 4 (2011).
4
D. Rennie, “Editorial Peer Review: Its Development and Rationale,” Chapter 1 in Peer
Review in Health Sciences, F. Goodlee and T. Jefferson, Eds., BMJ Books, London, 3–13
(1999).
5
S. Lock, A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine, BMJ, London (1985).
6
J. M. Campanario, “Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All
Times?”, J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. 47(4), 302–310 (1996).
7
J. M. Campanario and E. Acedo, “Rejecting Highly Cited Papers: The Views of Scientists
Who Encounter Resistance to Their Discoveries From Other Scientists”, J. Am. Soc.
Inform. Sci. Tech. 58(5), 734–743 (2007).
8
C. J. Lee, C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronon, “Bias in Peer Review”, J. Am. Soc.
Inform. Sci. 64(1), 2–17 (2013).
9
T. Jefferson, M. Rudin, S. B. Folse, and F. Davidoff, “Editorial peer review for improving
the quality of reports of biomedical studies”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
Issue 2, 1–39 (2007).
10
R. H. Fletcher and S. W. Fletcher, “The Effectiveness of Journal Peer Review”, Chapter
4 in Peer Review in Health Sciences, F. Goodlee and T. Jefferson, Eds., BMJ Books,
London, 62–75 (1999).
11
A. C. Weller, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses, ASIS&T, Medford,
NJ (2001).
12
A. Mulligan, L. Hall, and E. Raphael, “Peer Review in a Changing World: An
International Study Measuring the Attitudes of Researchers”, J. Am. Soc. Information Sci.
Technol. 64(1), 132–161 (2013).
13
H. Zuckerman and R. K. Merton, “Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation,
Structure and Functions of the Referee System”, Minerva 9(1), 66–100, (1971).
14
C. A. Mack, “Editorial: 350 Years of Scientific Journals”, J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS
MOEMS 14(1), 010101 (2015).