Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

ARNS, M. (2014): Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. In: Nature, 515(7528), p. 467.Search in Google Scholar

BEALL, J. (2016): Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. In: Nature, 534(7607), p. 326.Search in Google Scholar

BELLUZ, J., PLUMER, B. & RESNICK, B. (2016): The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-processSearch in Google Scholar

CALLAWAY, E. (2016): Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. In: Nature, 535(7611), pp. 210–211.Search in Google Scholar

CMJ (Croatian Medical Journal) (2016): About Journal. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://cmj.hr/default.aspx?id=26Search in Google Scholar

CORNELIUSSEN, S.T. (2015): Should journals pay peer reviewers $50 per hour? In: Physics Today. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8092Search in Google Scholar

CSISZAR, A. (2016): Troubled form the start. In: Nature, 532(7599), pp. 306–308.Search in Google Scholar

DADKHAH, M., MALISZEWSKI, T. & TEIXEIRA da SILVA, J. A. (2016): Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. In: Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 12(3), pp. 353–362.10.1007/s12024-016-9785-xSearch in Google Scholar

eLIFE (2016): About. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://elifesciences.org/aboutSearch in Google Scholar

FERREIRA, C., BASTILLE-ROUSSEAU, G., BENNETT, A. M., ELLINGTON, E. H., TERWISSEN, C., AUSTIN, C., BORLESTEAN, A., BOUDREAU, M. R., CHAN, K., FORSYTHE, A., HOSSIE, T. J., LANDOLT, K., LONGHI, J., OTIS, J.-A., PEERS, M. J. L., RAE, J., SEGUIN, J., WATT, C., WEHTJE, M. & MURRAY, D. L. (2016): The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? In: Biological Reviews, 91(3), pp. 597–610.Search in Google Scholar

GARG, P.K. (2015): Financial incentives to reviewers: double-edged sword. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(6), pp. 832–833.10.3346/jkms.2015.30.6.832Search in Google Scholar

GASPARYAN, A. Y., GERASIMOV, A. N., VORONOV, A. A. & KITAS, G. D. (2015a): Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(4), pp. 360–364.10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360Search in Google Scholar

GASPARYAN, A. Y., GERASIMOV, A. N., VORONOV, A. A. & KITAS, G. D. (2015b): Combined rewarding mechanisms can be implemented to incentivize the best reviewers. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(6), pp. 832–833.10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360Search in Google Scholar

JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) (2016): Instructions for authors of JMIR. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://www.jmir.org/content/author-instructions#Fast-trackSearch in Google Scholar

LARIVIÈRE, V., HAUSTEIN, S. & MONGEON, P. (2015): The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. In: PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.10.1371/journal.pone.0127502Search in Google Scholar

NATURE EDITORIAL (2014): Review rewards. In: Nature, 514(7522), p. 274.10.1038/514274aSearch in Google Scholar

OPEN ACCESS DIRECTORY (2016): OA journal business models. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_modelsSearch in Google Scholar

PUBLISHOPENACCESS (2016): Online platforms for recruiting and motivating reviewers. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.jp/2016/01/online-platforms-for-recruiting-and.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

PUBLONS (2016): Reviving Peer Review. Speeding Up Science. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://prw.publons.com/Search in Google Scholar

SCHEKMAN, R. (2013): How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-scienceSearch in Google Scholar

SCHUKLENK, U. (2015): On peer review. In: Bioethics, 29(2), pp. ii–iii.10.1111/bioe.12158Search in Google Scholar

SPIER, R. (2002): The history of the peer-review process. In: Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), pp. 357–358.10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6Search in Google Scholar

SÜDHOF, T.C. (2016): Truth in science publishing: a personal perspective. In: PLoS Biology, 14(8), e1002547.10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547Search in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA da SILVA, J.A. (2013a): Taxing the intellectual base: should authors foot the publishing bill? In: The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), pp. 111–113.Search in Google Scholar

TEIXEIRA da SILVA, J.A. (2013b): Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. In: The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), pp. 6–15.Search in Google Scholar

THÉRÈSE, S. & MARTIN, B. (2010): Shame, scientist! Degradation rituals in science. In: Prometheus, 28(2), pp. 97–110.10.1080/08109028.2010.494866Search in Google Scholar

THE COST OF KNOWLEDGE (2016). [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: http://thecostofknowledge.com/Search in Google Scholar

THE TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (2016): How long will goodwill in academia last? [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/how-long-will-goodwill-in-academia-lastSearch in Google Scholar

THE OPEN SCHOLARSHIP INITIATIVE (2016): Elsevier Awarded U.S. Patent for “Online Peer Review System and Method”. [online] [Retrieved September 27, 2016] Available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/4REh5gD5Zko/4ZVnBrToAQAJSearch in Google Scholar

TITE, L. & SCHROTER, S. (2007): Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. In: Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 61(1), pp. 9–12.10.1136/jech.2006.049817Search in Google Scholar