Are Scientific Editors Reliable Gatekeepers of the Publication Process?¶
Petrescu, M., & Krishen, A. S. (2019). Are Scientific Editors Reliable Gatekeepers of the Publication Process?. Biological Conservation, 238.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Gatekeeping
- Scientific peer review. Editors and referees deciding what enters the literature; desk-rejection is a particularly pure case — binary, fast, single-arbiter.
This sourceExamines editors and referees as gatekeepers of the literature, with desk-rejection as a fast, single-arbiter binary gate whose consistency and error profile are measurable.
- Scientific peer review. Editors and referees deciding what enters the literature; desk-rejection is a particularly pure case — binary, fast, single-arbiter.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:95d32535fa9d · see in the full table