Articles · Vol. 14 No 1-2 (2006): Revue africaine des médias, Volume 14, n° 1 & 2, 2006

Peer-review and the Electronic Journal: Opportunities for the participation of developing countries’ scientists in mainstream science

Vol. 14 · 2006 N°1-2 Revue africaine des médias, Volume 14, n° 1 & 2, 2006 AMR

Résumé

Le document retrace l’origine et l’évolution du mécanisme d’évaluation scientifique en soulignant ses points forts et ses faiblesses à ce jour. L’auteur affirme que la technologie offre de nouvelles formules d’évaluation scientifique collégial automatique et ouvert, où l’identité de l’auteur et du spécialiste n’est pas masquée. Cette approche, selon l’auteur, s’inscrit dans le droit fil de la culture d’ouverture de l’Internet. Des formules et des stratégies à adopter pour ce type d’évaluation sont suggérées.

Peer-review and the Electronic Journal: Opportunities for the participation of developing countries’ scientists in mainstream science

This paper traces the origin and evolution of the peer review process, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses to date. The author suggests that technology offers new opportunities for automated non-blinded open review process in which the identities of the author and the reviewer are not shielded. This approach, the author argues, conforms with the openness culture of the Internet. Options and strategies for effecting this type of review process are suggested.

Mots-clés

évaluation scientifique processus de revue scientifique électronique évaluation confidentiel périodique

Statistiques

Consultations du résumé
445
Téléchargements
108

Citations

2 citations

Voir les publications qui le citent Google Scholar

Citations recensées par OpenAlex, base ouverte de la littérature scientifique, mise à jour chaque semaine. Google Scholar peut en compter davantage.

Références

  1. Altman LK., 1996, ‘The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review - part 1’. Lancet 347: 1382-86.
  2. Altman LK., 1996, ‘The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review - part 2’. Lancet 347: 1459-63.
  3. Bu nham J.C., 1990, ‘The evolution of editorial peer review’. Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), 263:1323-1329
  4. Cho, M.K, Justice A.C., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Waeckerle J.F, Callaham M.L, Rennie D. and the peer investigators, 1998, ‘Masking author identity in peer review. What factors influence masking success?’ JAMA 280:240-245.
  5. Eisenstein, E., 1979, ‘The Book of Nature Transformed: Introduction: Problems of Periodisation’. In
  6. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communica- tions and Cultural Transformations in
  7. Early-Modern Europe, vol. 2. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Ernst, E., 2000, ‘Are reviewers biased against unconventional therapy?’ The Sci- entist. 14(21): 6.
  9. Fisher, M., Friedman, S. B., 1994, ‘The effect of blinding on acceptance of research Papers by peer review’. JAMA. 272:143-146.
  10. Foucault, M., 1977, ‘What is an author?’ In D.B Bouchard (Ed). Language, coun- ter memory, practice: selected essays and interviews. Ithaca, NY: Cornel Uni- versity Press. 113-138.
  11. Garfunkel, J.M; Ulshen M.H. Hamrick H.J; Lawson E.E., 1994, ‘Effect of institu- tional prestige on reviewers recommendations and editorial decisions’. 272:137- 8.
  12. Gilbert J.R, Williams E.S, Lundberg G.D., 1994, ‘Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer Review process?’ JAMA. 272:139-42.
  13. Harnad, S., 1995, ‘Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals’. In: Peek, R. & Newby, G. (Eds.) Electronic Publishing Confronts Academia: The
  14. Agenda for the Year 2000. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. [cited 1997 July 21]. Available from: URL: ftp:// ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/harnad95.peer.review Hirschauer, S., 2004, ‘Peer review research - Reviewed – Sociological shortcom- ings of academic evaluation (Review, German). Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 33 (1). p.62-83.
  15. Justice A.C; Cho M.K; Winker M.A; Berlin J.A; Rennie D and the peer investiga- tors, 1998, ‘Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: A randomised controlled trial’. JAMA. 280, 240.242.
  16. Kronick, D.A., 1962, A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals: The Ori- gins and Developments of the Scientific and Technological Press, 1665 - 1790. New York: Scarecrow Press Kronick, DA., 1990, ‘Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism’. JAMA. 263:1321-1322.
  17. Link A., 1998, ‘US and non-US submissions. An analysis of reviewer bias’. JAMA. 280:246-247
  18. Lowe HJ, Lomax EC, Polonkey SE, 1996, ‘The World Wide Web: A Review of an Emerging Internet-based Technology for the Distribution of Biomedical Infor- mation’. JAMA 3: 1-14.
  19. Lock S., 1990, ‘What do Peer reviewers do?’ JAMA. 263:1341-1343.
  20. Relman, A.S., 1983, ‘Lessons from the Darsee Affair’. New England Journal of Medicine 308:1415-17.
  21. Resch, K.I., Ernst E., Garrow J.A, 2000, ‘A randomized controlled study of re- viewer bias against an unconventional therapy’. J.R Social Medicine. 93:164- 167.
  22. Taubes, G., 1996, ‘Electronic Preprints Point the Way to ‘Author Empowerment.’ Science 271: 767-68.
  23. Van-Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S. Smith, R; Black, N., 1998, ‘Effect of open peer review on quality of review and reviewers. A randomized trial’. JAMA 280:234- 237.
  24. Zuckerman, H; Merton, R.K., 1971, Patterns of evaluation in science’. Minerva. 9:66-100.

Dans le même numéro

Vol. 14 No 1-2 (2006): Revue africaine des médias, Volume 14, n° 1 & 2, 2006 →