Peer-reviewing as a tool of scientific communication
https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i1.s102
Abstract
The main types of peer review are considered. The interaction of reviewers is described. Controversial issues of peer review are touched upon. The principle of meta-reviewing is explained. The issues of taxonomy of scientific reviewing are highlighted.
References
1. Zeldina, M. M. (2019). Retsenzirovanie [Reviewing]. Non-profit partnership "National Electronic Information Consortium". LLC "Your Digital Publishing House".
2. Tikhonova, E. V. (2020). Peer Review Week 2020, September 21–25, 2020: Joint Session of the Russian Regional Chapter of EASE & Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP), September 24, 2020, Moscow, Russia. Nauchnyi Redaktor i Izdatel’ [Science Editor and Publisher], 5(2), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-135-144
3. Tikhonova, E. V., & Raitskaya, L. K. (2021). Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review. Nauchnyi Redaktor i Izdatel’ [Science Editor and Publisher], 6(1), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17
4. Abdin, A. Y., Nasim, M. J., Ney, Y., & Jacob C. (2021). The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications, 9(1),13. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications9010013
5. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review,2, MR000016. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
6. Manchikanti, L., Kaye, A.D., Boswell, M., & Hirsch J.A. (2015). Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician, 18(1), E1– E14. https://dx.doi.org/10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1
7. Tikhonova, E., & Raitskaya, L. (2021). Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review. Journal of Language and Education, 7(2), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.12686
8. Vazquez, F., Lin, S.K., & Jacob, C. (2020). Changing Sci from post-publication peer-review to single-blind peer-review. Sci,2(4), 82. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sci2040082
9. Yeo S.K., Liang X., Brossard D., Rose K.M., Korzekwa K., Scheufele D.A., Xenos M.A. (2017). The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 937–952. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516649806
Review
For citations:
Kosycheva M.A. Peer-reviewing as a tool of scientific communication. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2021;3(1):7-12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i1.s102
Views:
525
Email this article 