Search
Advanced Search
Metrics info
Average Rating (0 User Ratings)
    • Currently 0/5 Stars.
    Rate This Article
More
Share this Article info
  • StumbleUpon Facebook Connotea CiteULike Bibliography

Open Access

Correspondence

An 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
Rate This Article
Please follow our guidelines for rating and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
  1. Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
  2. Unsupported assertions or statements
  3. Inflammatory or insulting language
Compose Your Annotation
 
Declare any competing interests.

Ratings can include the following markup tags:

Emphasis: ''italic''  '''bold'''  '''''bold italic'''''

Other: ^^superscript^^  ~~subscript~~

All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.