| |
Title: |
 |
Double Anonymity and the Peer Review Process |
|
| |
Authors: |
|
Brown, Richard |
|
| |
Journal: |
|
TheScientificWorldJOURNAL |
|
| |
Year: |
|
2006 |
|
| |
Volume: |
|
6 |
|
| |
Page Range: |
|
1274-1277 |
|
| |
Article Type: |
|
Opinion Paper |
|
| |
Domains: |
|
Environmental Chemistry
,
Analytical Chemistry
,
Bioinformatics
,
Psychology (Behavioral & Clinical)
|
|
| |
DOI: |
|
10.1100/tsw.2006.228 |
|
 ?
|
Article clouds not enabled. Press the image to enable for this session.
|
| |
Synopsis: |
|
This paper addresses the pros and cons of dthe use of double anonymity in the peer review process. It will be of interest to all domains, but in particular those in the chemistry field where the use of double anonymity is unusual. |
|
| |
Keywords: |
|
Peer review, double anonymity, scientific journals |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
![[Full Text PDF]](../images/pdf.gif "Download Full Text PDF")
[Related TSW Articles]
[Export to EndNote]
[Open Choice]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Abstract |
|
| |
|
|
The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. Review by one’s peers is a well-recognised and long-standing method of appraisal. Throughout all branches of science, medicine, humanities, art, literature, politics, sport, and in fact almost all areas of human endeavour, the judgement of work by an individual or group of experts in similar fields of study is the most rigorous and valuable form of recognition. ‘Peer review’, as this process is commonly known, is an important method of assuring quality, relevance and novelty of work. However, is there still room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review? |
|
| |
|
|
Related articles in:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Post Your Comment |
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|