Errors in science: The role of reviewers

T. Székely; O. Krüger; E.T. Krause

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001

Errors in science: The role of reviewers

T. Székely
, O. Krüger
, E.T. Krause

Bielefeld University
Wageningen University and Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (SciVal)

Abstract

Reviewers play a key role in science, although studies suggest the current peer-reviewing system has faults. We propose to introduce a quality control system to evaluate each journal's review process, and produce a Review Quality Index. We propose four schemes that have the potential to reduce errors in a key step in scientific decision making: the reviewing process.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	371-373
Number of pages	3
Journal	Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Volume	29
Issue number	7
Early online date	27 May 2014
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001
Publication status	Published - Jul 2014

Access to Document

10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001

Cite this

@article{2363aae7468749c4897b0d96eae7a6c7,

title = "Errors in science: The role of reviewers",

abstract = "Reviewers play a key role in science, although studies suggest the current peer-reviewing system has faults. We propose to introduce a quality control system to evaluate each journal's review process, and produce a Review Quality Index. We propose four schemes that have the potential to reduce errors in a key step in scientific decision making: the reviewing process.",

author = "T. Sz{\'e}kely and O. Kr{\"u}ger and E.T. Krause",

year = "2014",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "371--373",

journal = "Trends in Ecology \& Evolution",

issn = "0169-5347",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Errors in science

T2 - The role of reviewers

AU - Székely, T.

AU - Krüger, O.

AU - Krause, E.T.

PY - 2014/7

Y1 - 2014/7

N2 - Reviewers play a key role in science, although studies suggest the current peer-reviewing system has faults. We propose to introduce a quality control system to evaluate each journal's review process, and produce a Review Quality Index. We propose four schemes that have the potential to reduce errors in a key step in scientific decision making: the reviewing process.

AB - Reviewers play a key role in science, although studies suggest the current peer-reviewing system has faults. We propose to introduce a quality control system to evaluate each journal's review process, and produce a Review Quality Index. We propose four schemes that have the potential to reduce errors in a key step in scientific decision making: the reviewing process.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84903635067

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001

U2 - 10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001

DO - 10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.001

M3 - Article

SN - 0169-5347

VL - 29

SP - 371

EP - 373

JO - Trends in Ecology & Evolution

JF - Trends in Ecology & Evolution

IS - 7

ER -

Errors in science: The role of reviewers

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this