Peer review in scientific publications

Peer review in scientific publications

  • Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Publisher:The Stationery OfficeISBN 13: 9780215560889ISBN 10: 0215560884

Paperback & Hardcover deals ―

Amazon IndiaGOFlipkart GOSnapdealGOSapnaOnlineGOJain Book AgencyGOBooks Wagon₹548Book ChorGOCrosswordGODC BooksGO

e-book & Audiobook deals ―

Amazon India GOGoogle Play Books GOAudible GO

* Price may vary from time to time.

* GO = We're not able to fetch the price (please check manually visiting the website).

Know about the book -

Peer review in scientific publications is written by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee and published by The Stationery Office. It's available with International Standard Book Number or ISBN identification 0215560884 (ISBN 10) and 9780215560889 (ISBN 13).

This report indicates that the oversight of research integrity in the UK is unsatisfactory. The Science and Technology Committee concludes that in order to allow others to repeat and build on experiments, researchers should aim for the gold standard of making their data fully disclosed and made publicly available. The report examines the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications and the related issues of research impact, data management, publication ethics and research integrity. The UK does not seem to have an oversight body for research integrity covering advice and assurance functions across all disciplines and the Committee recommends the creation of an external regulator. It also says all UK research institutions should have a specific member of staff leading on research integrity. The report highlights concerns about the use of journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the quality of research or of individual articles. Innovative ways to improve current pre-publication peer-review practices are highlighted in the report, including the use of pre-print servers, open peer review, increased transparency and online repository-style journals. The growth of post-publication peer review and commentary also represents an enormous opportunity for experimentation with new media and social networking tools, which the Committee encourages. There should also be greater recognition of the work-sometimes considered to be a burden-carried out by reviewers, by both publishers and employers. In order to do this, publishers need to have in place systems for recording and acknowledging the contribution of those involved in peer review.