In this short communication we give critical comments on the paper of Perakakis et al. (Scientometrics 85(2):553–559, ) on “Natural selection of academic papers”. The criticism mainly focusses on their unbalanced criticism of peer review and their negative evaluation of the link of peer review with commercial publishing.
Antelman, K 2004 Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?. College and Research Libraries 65 5 372–382.
Bornmann, L, Daniel, H-D 2010 The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example an high-impact journal. PloS ONE 5 6 e11344 .
Bornmann, L., & Egghe, L. (2011). Journal peer review as an information retrieval process. Preprint.
Davis, P. (2011). http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/pmd8/.
Hernon, P, Schwartz, C 2011 Editorial. Modification of peer review?. Library and Information Science Research 33:1–2 .
Mandavilli, A 2011 Trial by twitter. Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react. Nature 469:286–287 .
Meyer, CA 2010 Researcher tools for evaluating trustworthiness: CrossCheck plagiarism screening and CrossMark. Library Connect 3 1 7.
Perakakis, P, Taylor, M, Mazza, M, Trachana, V 2010 Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics 85 2 553–559 .
Rousseau, R 2006 After the journal impact factor and the web impact factor a referee factor enters the fray: Some comments. ISSI Newsletter 2 2 2–3.
Wilson, R, Lancaster, J 2006 Referee factor would reward a vital contribution. Nature 441:812 .