Michal Juraska.

Daniel E http://www.cialis-generic.org/category/psychology . Neafsey, Ph.D., Michal Juraska, Ph.D., Trevor Bedford, Ph.D., David Benkeser, M.P.H., Clarissa Valim, M.D., Sc.D., Allison Griggs, M.Sc., Marc Lievens, M.Sc., Salim Abdulla, M.D., Ph.D., Samuel Adjei, M.B., Ch.B., D.T.M., Tsiri Agbenyega, M.B., Ch.B., Ph.D., Selidji T. Agnandji, M.D., Pedro Aide, M.D., Ph.D., Scott Anderson, B.S., Daniel Ansong, M.B., Ch.B., John J. Aponte, M.D., Ph.D., Kwaku Poku Asante, M.D., Ph.D., Philip Bejon, Ph.D., Ashley J. Birkett, Ph.D., Myriam Bruls, M.Sc., Kristen M. Connolly, B.S.D., Ph.D.D., Samwel Gesase, M.D., Brian Greenwood, M.D., Jonna Grimsby, Ph.D., Halidou Tinto, Ph.D., Mary J.

But that move might not be enough, as the publisher Hindawi found out this past spring. Although Hindawi doesn’t let authors suggest reviewers for their manuscripts, it made a decision to examine the peer-review records for manuscripts submitted in 2013 and 2014 for possible fraud. The peer-review procedure found in Hindawi’s journals depends primarily on the expertise of its editorial board members and the guest editors of special issues, who are responsible for supervising the overview of submitted manuscripts.5 Since the peer reviewers chosen by the guest editors were not subject to any kind of independent verification, editors themselves could undermine the process in quite similar way that authors or third-party agencies did elsewhere: by creating fake reviewer identities and addresses that they submitted reviews that are positive endorsing publication.