IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v515y2014i7528d10.1038_515467a.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open access is tiring out peer reviewers

Author

Listed:
  • Martijn Arns

Abstract

As numbers of published articles rise, the scholarly review system must adapt to avoid unmanageable burdens and slipping standards, says Martijn Arns.

Suggested Citation

  • Martijn Arns, 2014. "Open access is tiring out peer reviewers," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 467-467, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:515:y:2014:i:7528:d:10.1038_515467a
    DOI: 10.1038/515467a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/515467a
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/515467a?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vincent Raoult, 2020. "How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    3. Paul Frijters & Benno Torgler, 2019. "Improving the peer review process: a proposed market system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1285-1288, May.
    4. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    5. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    7. Carlos S. Galina & José F. Martínez & Bruce D. Murphy, 2023. "Constraints on Research in Biological and Agricultural Science in Developing Countries: The Example of Latin America," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Marcel Ausloos, 2016. "Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 271-286, April.
    9. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    10. Siddarth Srinivasan & Jamie Morgenstern, 2021. "Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review," Papers 2109.00923, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    11. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    12. V. Hernández-González & A. Pano-Rodríguez & J. Reverter-Masia, 2020. "Spanish doctoral theses in physical activity and sports sciences and authors’ scientific publications (LUSTRUM 2013–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 661-679, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:nature:v:515:y:2014:i:7528:d:10.1038_515467a. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.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.