No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The editor-referee system and publication an editor's view of the process
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
Abstract
This chapter explains the functioning of scientific journals from the editorial side of the process. Both the history and current functioning of scientific journals are reviewed with a particular emphasis on the evolution of the referee’s role. In its current form, the evaluation of a submission is interactive between the three parties – the author(s), editors, and reviewers. The editors serve as the mediators and final evaluators, seeking advice from one or more contacted experts who are in the special position of evaluating the science, presentation, and significance of the work. The chapter explains how this proceeds, and its advantages, pitfalls, and criteria – scientific, archival, and ethical – and how these have evolved historically and consensually. Since referees and editors are also authors, the symbiosis of the process is one of its strengths, since all participants exchange roles.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © EAS, EDP Sciences 2011
References
Abt, H.A. (ed.), 1995, American Astronomical Society Centennial Issue of the Astrophysical Journal (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press)
Alberts, B., Hanson, B., & Kelner, K.L., 2008, Science, 321, 15: “Reviewing peer review (editorial)” CrossRef
Aller, L.H., 1999, ApJ, 525, 265: “Menzel’s ‘Physical Processes in Gaseous Nebulae”’, commentary in AAS Centennial Volume
Anderson, R., 1993, Notes Rec. Roy. Soc. London, 47, 243: “The referees’ assessment of Faraday’s Electromagnetic Induction Paper of 1834” CrossRef
Batchelor, G.K., 1981, J. Fluid Mech., 106, 1: “Preoccupations of a journal editor”, a must read for anyone wanting a deep reflective assessment of scientific publishing CrossRef
Brown, C., 2004, Scientometrics, 60, 25: “The Mathew Effect of the Annual Reviews an the flow of scientific communication through the World Wide Web” CrossRef
Eggen, O., 1993, ARA&A, 31, 1: “Notes from a Life in the Dark” (this is where Eggen lets it all out at the referees and editors) CrossRef
Evans, J.A., 2008, Science, 321, 395: “Narrowing of science scholarship”. This is one of the most important studies of citations and the evolution of the “general culture” of the literature, and one that has received considerable attention (by a historian of ancient astronomy, so one of wide culture) CrossRefPubMed
Giles, J., 2006, Nature: on checking of results, “The trouble with replication”
Hartman, P., 1994, A Memoir on the Physical Review: A history of the first hundred years (NY: AIP Press)
Hoffmann, D., 2005, Ann. der Physik, 17, 273: “ ’... you can’t say to anyone to their face: your paper is rubbish.’ Max Planck as Editor of the Annalen der Physik” CrossRef
Jackson, D., & Launder, B., 2007, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 39, 19: “Osborne Reynolds and the publication of his papers on turbulent flow” CrossRef
Kennerfick, D., 2005, Phys. Today, (Sep.), 34: “Einstein versus the Physical Review”: this is a rare look into the archives at the process behind refereeing
Koocher, G., & Kieth-Spiegel, P., 2010, Nature, 466, 438: “Peers nip misconduct in the bud” CrossRef
LaFollette, M.C., 1996, Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press)
McClelland III, J.E., 2003, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., 93(2), 1: “Specialist Control: The Publications Committee of the Acadèmie Royale Des Sciences (Paris) 1700-1793”: The most complete study to date on the origin of the refereeing system in the 18th century
Meadows, A.J., 2008, Science and Controversy: A Biography of Sir Norman Lockyer, Founder Editor of Nature, 2nd Ed. (London: Macmillan)
Parker, E.N., 1997, EOS, 78, 391: a personal account, “The martial art of scientific publication” CrossRef
Pyenson, L., 2005, Ann. der Physik, 17, 176: “ Physical sense in relativity: Max Planck edits the Annalen der Physik, 1906–1918” CrossRef
Reingold, N., & Reingold, I.H. (eds.), 1981, Science in America: A Documentary History, 1900-1939 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)
Rose, M. 1993, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press)
Schultz, D.M., 2010, Scientometrics, 86, 251: “Rejection rates for multiple-part manuscripts” CrossRef
Wali, K.C., 1991, Chandra: A Biography of S. Chandrasekhar (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press)
Wright, H., 1966. Explorer of the Universe, A biography of George Ellery Hale (NY: Dutton)
Abt, H.A., 2000, unpublished: a personal note, this set of comments on refereeing was prepared during Abt’s term as editor of the ApJ but was, alas, unpublished. It is, however, availble from its author
Berendzen, R., 1974, Physics Today, 27: 33-39: “Origins of the American Astronomical Society” CrossRef
Burrell, Q.L., 2005, Scientometrics, 65, 381: This is a particularly interesting paper, “Are sleeping beauties to be expected?” The phenomenon is a paper that, after years of neglect, suddenly becomes “hot”. Perhaps the best example I can cite is the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paper on the completeness of quantum mechanics. For decades it was known, and discussed, almost exclusively in the philosophical and historical literature, along with Bell;s theorem. Then along came quantum computing and suddenly these became required reading at the leading edge of theoretical physics CrossRef
Chilton, S., 1999, Academe (Nov.) 54: this paper is one of the sleeping beauties, intended for a general academic audience (this is the magazine of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the group that defined tenure in the North American university): “The Good Reviewer”
Cole, J.R., & Cole, S., 1972, Science, 178, 368: another example of the sociological view of the referee system, following the same path as Merton’s studies, “the Ortega effect” CrossRef
Cole, S., Cole, J.R., & Simon, G.A., 1981, Science, 214, 881: another of the social studies similar to Merton and the Matthew Effect, “Chance and Concensus in Peer Review” CrossRef
de Solla Price, D., 1975, Science Since Babylon: Enlarged Edition (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press) a real classic, one of the first historical-social studies of the growth of science by a leading historian of physical science, see chapter 8: “Diseases of science”
Garfield, E., 1986, Current Contents, nr. 32, 3: one of the classics, frequently cited, by the founder of Science Citation Index, “refereeing and peer review”
Goudsmit, S.A., 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 10, 41: “The future of physics publications: a proposal”, an editorial at the start of the literature explosion in the 1960s
Greene, M., 2007, Nature, 450, 1165: as the number of authors multiples, and projects become ever more complicated (in fields that previously had been immune to the “big science” team research structure), this paper offers some interesting insights: “the demise of the lone author” CrossRef
Holmes, F.L., 1987, Isis, 78, 220: a general historical account, “scientific writing and scientific discovery” CrossRef
Judson, H.F., 1994, JAMA, 272, 92: one I recommend for its view of the process in perhaps the most sensitive field for refereeing, medicine: “structural transformations of sciences and the end of peer review” CrossRef
Phelan, T.J., 1999, Scientometrics, 45, 117: a guide for the perplexed in bibliometrics, “A compendium of issues for citation analysis” CrossRef
Skilton, P.F., 2006, Scientometrics, 68, 73: A recent study of the evolution of citations as they propagate through the literature, “A comparison of communal practice: assessing the effect of taken-for-granted-ness on citation practice in scientific communities” CrossRef
Suppe, F., 1998, Phil. Science, 65, 381: “The Structure of a Scientific Paper” (see also comments by Alan Franklin and Colin Howson); also Lipton, P. ibib, 406: “The best explanation of a scientific paper” CrossRef
Weller, A.C., 2000, J. Amer.
Soc. Inform. Sci., 51, 1328: one of the early reviews, “Editorial peer
review for electronic journals: current issues and emerging models”; see also Brown, C.
2001, J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci, 52,
187: an example of the process of expansion of the arxiv viewed from
outside, “e-volution of preprints for physics and astronomers” 3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRef