Chapter 4.     Authorship and Peer Review

Francis L. Macrina



Atlas R, Campbell P, Cozzarelli NR, Curfman G, Enquist L, Fink G, Flanagin A, Fletcher J, George E, Hammes G, Heyman D, Inglesby T, Kaplan S, Kennedy D, Krug J, Levinson R, Marcus E, Metzger H, Morse SS, O’Brien A, Onderdonk A, Poste G, Renault B, Rich R, Rosengard A, Salzberg S, Scanlan M, Shenk T, Tabor H, Varmus H, Wimmer E, Yamamoto K; Journal Editors and Authors Group. 2003. Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity. Nature 421:771.

Carroll MW. 2013. Creative Commons and the openness of open access. N Engl J Med 368:789–791.

Day RA, Gastel B. 2006. How To Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 6th ed. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:17028–17033.

Frank M. 2013. Open but not free—publishing in the 21st century. N Engl J Med 368:787–789.

Garner HR. 2011. Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urol Oncol 29:95–99.

Hames I. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, United Kingdom.

Haug C. 2013. The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med 368:791–793.

Kennedy D. 1997. Academic Duty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Mandavilli A. 2011. Peer review: trial by Twitter. Nature 469:286–287.

Marcus A, Oransky I. 2011. Science publishing: the paper is not sacred. Nature 480:449–450.

Merton RK. 1968. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159:56–63.

Nature. 2010. Special issue: Science Metrics. 465:845, 860–862, 864–866, 870–872.

Nature. 2013. Special issue: The Future of Publishing.

Nature Editors. 2010. Response required. Nature 468:867.

Resnick DB, Barner DD, Dinse GE. 2011. Dual-use review policies of biomedical research journals. Biosecur Bioterror 9:49–54.

Science. 2013. Special issue: Communication in Science: Pressures and Predators. 342:13, 56–59, 66–71.

Sigma Xi. 2011. For the Record: American Scientist Essays on Scientific Publication. Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC.

            A collection of essays on publication topics including authorship, peer review, and electronic publication.

Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One 8:e68397. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.

Suber P. 2012. Open Access. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Wolpert AJ. 2013. For the sake of inquiry and knowledge—the inevitability of open access. N Engl J Med 368:785–787.


Selected instructions for authors or editorial policies

Journal of Bacteriology


Phytopathology thor_instructions.pdf

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Prior Publication Policy



San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (hosted by the American Society for Cell Biology)

Organizations and associations

Committee of Publication Ethics

Council of Science Editors (including CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012)

Ethics Collaborative Online Resource Environment (Ethics CORE) website, a resource source for publications:

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors website, where the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals may be accessed:

The Office of Research Integrity website’s resources on publications and authorship:

World Association of Medical Editors

Open access

Action Plan towards Open Access to Publications, from the Global Research Council:

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing

Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration

Directory of Open Access Journals

Harvard Open Access Project website (Peter Suber, director):

Howard Hughes Medical Institute open public access policy

Scholarly Open Access: Critical Analysis of Scholarly Open-Access Publishing is a blog created and maintained by Jeffrey Beall:

Wellcome Trust open-access policy

Plagiarism detection software and use


Deja Vu: a Database of Highly Similar Citations

eTBLAST: a text-similarity based search engine

iThenticate: online plagiarism detection software

PubMed and related archives

PubMed, a biomedical literature citation database operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health:

PubMed Central, a green, open-access, full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences research publications operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health:

PubMed Central International, a collaborative effort between PubMed Central and organizations in other countries or areas (presently Europe and Canada) aimed at creating digital archives of the scientific literature at multiple global sites:

Europe PubMed Central, the website of the European PubMed Central research literature archive:

For funding agencies that require or encourage archiving of research articles supported by agency grants in Europe PubMed Central:

PubMed Central Canada research literature archive; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) requires that its grant recipients archive papers reporting their CIHR-supported research within 12 months of publication:

Scientific societies’ guidance on authorship and publication ethics

American Chemical Society

American Psychological Association

Society for Neuroscience

Other online resources, a registry and results database of clinical studies of human participants:

National Institutes of Health Office of Biotechnology Activities website, with links to the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity and Dual Use Research of Concern pages:

Retraction Watch, an independent blog created and maintained by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky that follows retractions of papers published in the scientific literature:

Thomson Reuters Web of Science