Peer review Prozess (wissenschaftlich)
BiblioMap 
Synonyme
Peer review Prozess (wissenschaftlich), Wissenschaftlicher Peer Review-Prozess, Peer-review-Publikation
Bemerkungen
Low consistency over time: Highly ranked journals rejected many papers that
thereafter received distinguished prizes, among them the Nobel Prize (Campanario
1996; Gans and Shepherd 1994; Lawrence 2003).Low interrater reliability: The correlation between the judgments of two peers is
low. In 16 studies, Starbuck (2005, 2015) found a mean correlation between
reviewers of only 0.18. In clinical neuroscience the correlation between reviewers
“was little greater than would be expected by chance alone” (Rothwell and Martyn
2000, p. 1964). Luck of the referee drawn plays a big role (Bornmann and Daniel
2009).Low prognostic quality: Assessment of promotion decisions in three prestigious management departments estimated an error rate of 60 % (Starbuck 2015). Reviewers’ ratings of manuscript quality correlated only 0.24 with later citations (Gottfredson 1978). Many articles published in “top" journals are rarely cited, which means that the reviewers do not judge the future impact in a satisfactory way (Hudson 2013; Laband 2013). This is the reason why the rating of a journal should not be used as an indicator of quality of a single article published in the respective journal (Baum 2011; Kieser 2012).Verwandte Objeke
Verwandte Begriffe (co-word occurance) | Bibliometriebibliometry(0.14), Salamipublikationenleast publishable unit(0.1), Drittmittel(0.09), PublikationsdruckPublish or Perish!(0.06), Impact FactorImpact Factor(0.06), Aufgeblasene AutorenlistenHonorary Authorship(0.05), EigenplagiatSelf-Plagiarism(0.04), peer reviewpeer review(0.03) |
 Verwandte Aussagen | Peer-Review-Prozess fördert das strategische Zitieren Peer-Review-Prozess hat eine niedrige interrater reliability Peer Review-Prozess hat eine geringe prognostische Qualität Peer Review-Prozess hat viele später hochgepriesene Publikationen abgewiesen Peer Review-Prozess dauert oft lange. Peer Review-Prozess stützt bestehende Theorien |
Häufig co-zitierte Personen
Dagmar
Bruno S.Statistisches Begriffsnetz
Zitationsgraph
Zitationsgraph (Beta-Test mit vis.js)
Zeitleiste
14 Erwähnungen
- 'Peer Review' Culture (Malcolm Atkinson) (2001)
- Anreize im Wissenschaftssystem (Margit Osterloh, Bruno S. Frey) (2008)
- Sinnlose Wettbewerbe - Warum wir immer mehr Unsinn produzieren (Mathias Binswanger) (2010)
- 7. Beispiel Wissenschaft - Immer mehr unsinnige Publikationen
- Empfehlungen zur Bewertung und Steuerung von Forschungsleistung (Deutscher Wissenschaftsrat) (2011)
- Incentives and Performance - Governance of Research Organizations (Isabell M. Welpe, Jutta Wollersheim, Stefanie Ringelhan, Margit Osterloh) (2015)
- 2. How Nonsense Became Excellence - Forcing Professors to Publish (Mathias Binswanger) (2015)
- 7. Interrater Reliability of the Peer Review Process in Management Journals (Alexander T. Nicolai, Stanislaw Schmal, Charlotte L. Schuster)
- 8. The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research - Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects (Stefanie Haustein, Vincent Larivière)
- 19. Double-Blind Peer Review - How to Slaughter a Sacred Cow (Margit Osterloh, Alfred Kieser)
- 2. How Nonsense Became Excellence - Forcing Professors to Publish (Mathias Binswanger) (2015)
- Was leisten Wissenschaftsverlage heute eigentlich noch? (Lorenz M. Hilty) (2015)
- «Bauchgefühl ist nicht Wahrheit» (Lorraine Daston, David Hesse) (2017)
- Schwimmen lernen im digitalen Chaos (Philippe Wampfler) (2017)
- Digitalisierung - Subjekt - Bildung - Kritische Betrachtungen der digitalen Transformation (Valentin Dander, Patrick Bettinger, Estella Ferraro, Christian Leineweber, Klaus Rummler) (2020)
- Den Profit machen die Verlage (Martin Angler) (2021)
- The Coming Wave - Technology, Power, and the Twenty-first Century's Greatest Dilemma (Mustafa Suleyman, Michael Bhaskar) (2023)
Biblionetz-History 
