IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v5y2017i2p16-d100639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11

Author

Listed:
  • John D. Wyndham

    (Scientists for 9/11 Truth, 36 Union Street, Peterborough, NH 03458, USA)

Abstract

Beginning with an historical reminiscence, this paper examines the peer review process as experienced by authors currently seeking publication of their research in a highly controversial area. A case study of research into the events of 9/11 (11 September 2001) illustrates some of the problems in peer review arising from undue influences based on financial and political considerations. The paper suggests that ethical failures, rather than flaws in the process itself, are mainly responsible for perceived problems. The way forward lies in improved ethics and a more open process. In addition, editorial review boards and peer review strategies would help to improve the ethics of peer review in general.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. Wyndham, 2017. "Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:5:y:2017:i:2:p:16-:d:100639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & Joaquín Fdez-Valdivia, 2015. "Bias and effort in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2020-2030, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan Singleton, 2017. "Peer Review and Churchill," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-2, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 967-986, March.
    2. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2019. "The optimal amount of information to provide in an academic manuscript," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1685-1705, December.
    3. Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & García, J.A. & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2016. "Evolutionary games between authors and their editors," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 645-655.
    4. Bayar, Onur & Chemmanur, Thomas J., 2021. "A model of the editorial process in academic journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2015. "The author–editor game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 361-380, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:5:y:2017:i:2:p:16-:d:100639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.