Transforming editorial and peer review processes for a digital age
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafo, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 291.
Callaway, E. (2020). AI curates papers with a little help from its human friends. Nature, 582(7811), 137–138.
Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C. M. (2017). Untangling academic publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige
Horbach, S. P., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1), 8.
Horbach, S. P. (2020). Pandemic publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for COVID-19. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1056-1067.
Kupferschmidt, K., & Cohen, J. (2020). Race to find COVID-19 treatments accelerates. Science, 367(6485), 1412-1413.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
Peters, D. P., Ceci, S. J., & Plotkin, J. B. (2016). The future of empirical science: New tools for a new age. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e111.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 33.
Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Godlee, F. (2003). The Future of Peer Review. BMJ, 327(7414), 564-567.
Stossel, T. P. (2006). The art of peer review. The Scientist, 20(3), 12.
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Grimaldo, F. (2017). Long- and short-term determinants of the recall of scientific items: Insights from the Web of Science and Scopus data sets. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 356-365.
Voytiuk, T. (2022) The invasion of Russia put more than three hundred million people at risk of starvation – Borrell. Suspilne Media.
Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., & Waltman, L. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). Digital Science.
Zhou, P., & Chen, H. (2021). The swift increase of COVID-19-related literature: Patterns, themes, and the role of preprints. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 367-379.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafo, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 291.
Callaway, E. (2020). AI curates papers with a little help from its human friends. Nature, 582(7811), 137–138.
Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C. M. (2017). Untangling academic publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige
Horbach, S. P., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1), 8.
Horbach, S. P. (2020). Pandemic publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for COVID-19. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1056-1067.
Kupferschmidt, K., & Cohen, J. (2020). Race to find COVID-19 treatments accelerates. Science, 367(6485), 1412-1413.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
Peters, D. P., Ceci, S. J., & Plotkin, J. B. (2016). The future of empirical science: New tools for a new age. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e111.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 33.
Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Godlee, F. (2003). The Future of Peer Review. BMJ, 327(7414), 564-567.
Stossel, T. P. (2006). The art of peer review. The Scientist, 20(3), 12.
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Grimaldo, F. (2017). Long- and short-term determinants of the recall of scientific items: Insights from the Web of Science and Scopus data sets. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 356-365.
Voytiuk, T. (2022) The invasion of Russia put more than three hundred million people at risk of starvation – Borrell. Suspilne Media.
Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., & Waltman, L. (2015). The Metric Tide: Literature Review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). Digital Science.
Zhou, P., & Chen, H. (2021). The swift increase of COVID-19-related literature: Patterns, themes, and the role of preprints. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 367-379.
Published
2023-02-28
How to Cite
Rojas-Bahamón, M. J., & Arbeláez-Campillo, D. F. (2023). Transforming editorial and peer review processes for a digital age. Amazonia Investiga, 12(61), 7-9. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.61.01.0
Issue
Section
Editorial
.gif)
