View and Join Ongoing Discussions
Original ArticleAn Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem
| 0 responses |
Competition is still needed... | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:25 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:25 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
A year later! More reflections. | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:25 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:25 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Response from PLoS Biology | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:20 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:20 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Reward, not punishment - Solving peer review problems | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:20 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:20 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
How about public peer review and interactive discussion? | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
TCR: Transparency, Contribution, Responsibility | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
quality not speed | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Pay-to-play and sign away: combating scientific review abuses | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Benefits of "slow" review | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
what if? | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
What about the quality of reviews | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:17 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Money will make it faster…………. | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
An alternative Incentive Solution to the Peer Review | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
More competition is needed | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Dangerous! | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
The quick review: mission impossible! | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Real rewarding for good referees! | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Further suggestions how to accelerate peer review | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Alternative proposal | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Seriously...Incentives? | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
| 0 responses |
Great idea | Posted by plosbiology on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT |
| Most recent response on 07 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT | ||
You can also make a new comment on this article.