Evaluation of Peer Review in Biomedical Publication

El-Munshid, Hassan A.

doi:10.5144/0256-4947.2001.275

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Scoble, 2004, p. 702)Peer review is imperfect, but it is the only known instrument to screen out flawed and fraudulent research. (El‐Munshid, 2001, p. 281)…”

Section: Numbers Of Suprageneric Taxa Recognized In Classifications Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peer review is imperfect and varies greatly in its effectiveness in establishing the accuracy and value of research (Horrobin, 1990; Enserink, 2001; Jefferson et al., 2002; Lawrence, 2003). Nevertheless, it remains the benchmark by which all other approaches to quality are measured (Harnad, 1999; Roberts, 1999; El‐Munshid, 2001; Arms, 2002; Mooney, 2004). One essential requirement for effective peer review is independence between author and reviewer.…”

Section: Peer Review Online Publishing and Taxonomic Anarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We further submit that an analysis and revised classification of the kind presented in various papers by these authors could not survive the peer-review process of a mainstream scientific journal. The poor scholarship exemplified by S&F (2003a), Fet et al (2005), , and other papers published in their selfedited online journal, Euscorpius, emphasize the importance of quality control associated with the emergent infrastructure of online publishing that have recently been raised by others (Hansen et al, 2000;El-Munshid, 2001;Siemens et al, 2001;Kling et al, 2002;Lee, 2002;Godfray and Knapp, 2004;Knapp et al, 2004;Scoble, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Prendini¹,

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soleglad and Fet's (2003a) attempt to reconstruct the phylogeny of Recent (including extant) scorpions, the revised classification derived from it, and recent emendations, mostly published in their self-edited online journal, Euscorpius, are deficient. Separate analyses of three independent matrices (morphology, 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA) were presented. In the morphological matrix, 52 binary and 10 tristate trichobothrial characters were replaced with one character comprising six ordered states representing trichobothrial ''types''. The remaining matrix of 105 characters was further reduced to 33 ''fundamental'' characters (20% of the morphological dataset), the analysis of which appears to be the basis for the revised classification presented. The taxon sample for the morphological analysis included 14 supraspecific terminal taxa representing genera, the monophyly of only 7 (12.5%) of which has been confirmed. A composite terminal, assembled from the fragments of fossils that may not be confamilial let alone monophyletic, was created for the Palaeopisthacanthidae, employed as the primary outgroup for the analysis. Other important outgroup taxa, notably eurypterids, xiphosurans and other arachnids, were omitted entirely. The morphological characters presented contained numerous unjustifiable assumptions of character polarity and phylogenetic relationship. An approach to character coding, deliberately adopted to reduce ''homoplasy'', biased the analysis towards a preconceived result. Structurally and topographically similar features in different taxa were explicitly assigned separate (often autapomorphic) states according to presumed phylogenetic relationships among the taxa in which they were observed. Putative ''reversals'' were coded as separate characters or states. Character transformation was forced by ordering, additive coding or Sankoff optimization through allegedly intermediate states for which there is no empirical evidence. Many characters were defined in a manner that demonstrates either a lack of understanding of, or disregard for, established methods and standards of morphological character coding. Some states display overlapping variation whereas others subsume variation that is not structurally or topographically similar. Polymorphic ''states'' were created for terminals with interspecific variation and unknown ''states'' for terminals that should have been scored unknown. Many characters were not evaluated for particular terminal taxa, but merely scored inapplicable although the structures and, consequently, the characters in question are present and therefore applicable to them. In view of the significant theoretical and empirical problems with the approach to cladistics taken by Soleglad and Fet, we find no justification for accepting either the results of their analyses or the revised classification derived from them. Pending the outcome of a rigorous phylogenetic analysis, published according to acceptable standards of scholarship in a peer-reviewed journal, we revert to the suprageneric classific...

show abstract

“…(Scoble, 2004, p. 702)Peer review is imperfect, but it is the only known instrument to screen out flawed and fraudulent research. (El‐Munshid, 2001, p. 281)…”

Section: Numbers Of Suprageneric Taxa Recognized In Classifications Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Peer Review Online Publishing and Taxonomic Anarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Prendini¹,

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, its credibility as a valid certification mechanism has come under scrutiny. There exists a rich body of literature that points to many of the inadequacies of the current system (Evans, 1995;El-Munchid, 2001;Bence & Oppenheim, 2004), but of particular interest to this paper is the issue concerned with ensuring that referees are in fact reviewing manuscripts within their domain of expertise (Kassirer & Campion, 1994;Eisenhart, 2002). There exists a series of stages within the peer-review process that ultimately lead up to a referee review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the bid behavior of conference referees

Rodriguez¹,

Bollen²,

Sompel³

2007

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The peer-review process, in its present form, has been repeatedly criticized. Of the many critiques ranging from publication delays to referee bias, this paper will focus specifically on the issue of how submitted manuscripts are distributed to qualified referees. Unqualified referees, without the proper knowledge of a manuscript's domain, may reject a perfectly valid study or potentially more damaging, unknowingly accept a faulty or fraudulent result. In this paper, referee competence is analyzed with respect to referee bid data collected from the 2005 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). The analysis of the referee bid behavior provides a validation of the intuition that referees are bidding on conference submissions with regards to the subject domain of the submission. Unfortunately, this relationship is not strong and therefore suggests that there may potentially exists other factors beyond subject domain that may be influencing referees to bid for particular submissions.

show abstract

“…The biomedical literature is highly dependent on quality-controlled information; 3 yet the increasing number of papers submitted for publication is putting a strain on the system. 4 Some scientists even question the effectiveness of the current peer-review system as the selection of two or three reviewers can be arbitrary and subject to conflict of interest, as well as being the rate-limiting step for making time-critical data public. 2,3,5 The ALPSP 2002 survey found that 45% of those surveyed expected the peer-review system to change in the next five years, and 27% thought that traditional peer review would be supplemented by post-publication commentary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post‐publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faculty of 1000 (http://www.facultyof1000.com) is a new on‐line literature awareness and assessment service of research papers, on the basis of selections by 1400 of the world's top biologists, that combines metrics with judgement. The service offers a systematic and comprehensive form of post‐publication peer review that focuses on the best papers regardless of the journal in which they are published. It is now possible to draw some conclusions about how this new form of post‐publication peer review meets the needs of scientists, and the organizations that fund them, in practice. In addition, inferences about the relative importance of journals are set out, which should also interest publishers and librarians.

show abstract

Evaluation of Peer Review in Biomedical Publication

Cited by 6 publications

References 44 publications

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Mapping the bid behavior of conference referees

Post‐publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About