The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing

The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-12-01
Series:	Frontiers in Plant Science
Subjects:	Ethics Fraud Peer Review Publishing Bias Integrity
Online Access:	http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00485/full

Similar Items

Gender differences in time taken for peer review and publishing output in the physical sciences
by: Emma C. Leedham Elvidge
Published: (2023-03-01)

Writing for peer reviewed journals : strategies for getting published /
by: Thomson, Pat, 1948-, et al.
Published: (c201)

Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?
by: Faye Holst, et al.
Published: (2022-10-01)

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Susan Guthrie, et al.
Published: (2018-03-01)

What does scientific publishing in public health mean?
by: Paolo Vineis
Published: (2022-11-01)

An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf]
by: Jelena Aleksic, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

Publication guideline check! What do the academician, clinician and post-graduate student think? A cross-sectional study
by: Jayaditya Modak, et al.
Published: (2024-01-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 3; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2018-01-01)

Peer Review of Manuscripts: An Online Training Module
by: Latha Chandran, et al.
Published: (2013-06-01)

Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry
by: Teixeira da Silva Jaime A., et al.
Published: (2016-12-01)

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
by: Charles W. Fox, et al.
Published: (2019-03-01)

Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing
by: Catharine E. Krebs, et al.
Published: (2023-10-01)

Peer review and publication delay
by: Fernandez-Llimos F, et al.
Published: (2019-03-01)

Towards an open science publishing platform [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
by: Vitek Tracz, et al.
Published: (2016-02-01)

Open evaluation (OE): A vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science
by: Nikolaus eKriegeskorte
Published: (2012-10-01)

Why Peer Review?
by: Stewart Brower
Published: (2009-04-01)

We can shift academic culture through publishing choices [version 2; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
by: Corina J Logan
Published: (2017-06-01)

Review of Peer review: Reform and Renewal in Scientific Publishing
by: Sarah Rose Fitzgerald
Published: (2018-05-01)

Decentralising scientific publishing: can the blockchain improve science communication?
by: Flávio Codeço Coelho, et al.

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Sarah Holst, et al.
Published: (2018-08-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-10-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-04-01)

Toward a new model of scientific publishing: Discussion and a proposal
by: Dwight eKravitz, et al.
Published: (2011-12-01)

Is positive publication bias really a bias, or an intentionally created discrimination toward negative results?
by: Hunny Sharma, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01)

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5n1]
by: Emily Ford
Published: (2015-07-01)

Peer review: what are the OBJN responsabilities?
by: Isabel CF da Cruz
Published: (2006-12-01)

The Inherent Drawbacks of the Pressure to Publish in Health Sciences: Good or Bad Science [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira, et al.
Published: (2016-03-01)

The Inherent Drawbacks of the Pressure to Publish in Health Sciences: Good or Bad Science [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
by: Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveria, et al.
Published: (2015-07-01)

Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5gj]
by: Richard Walker, et al.
Published: (2015-06-01)

Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers
by: Olena Zimba, et al.
Published: (2021-02-01)

Scholarly publishing and peer review in the Global South: the role of the reviewer
by: Peter Lor
Published: (2022-12-01)

The eLife approach to peer review
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-04-01)

ASSAf: Putting the ‘Statement on Ethical Research and Scholarly Publishing Practices’ into practice
by: Susan Veldsman, et al.
Published: (2019-11-01)

Reviewing Peer Review
by: Barry London
Published: (2021-08-01)

Post-publication Peer Review: Opening up Scientific Conversation
by: Jane eHunter
Published: (2012-08-01)

Our Billion-Dollar Donation to the Publishing Industry
by: Peter C. Black
Published: (2022-02-01)

Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?
by: Drvenica Ivana, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01)

Make researchers revisit past publications to improve reproducibility [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Clare Fiala, et al.
Published: (2017-09-01)

Decisions, decisions
by: Peter Rodgers
Published: (2017-09-01)