Peer review and secrecy in the "Information Age"
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Jennifer Couzin,et al. ... And How the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors , 2006, Science.
[2] Chan Ky,et al. Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial , 2001 .
[3] Undermining peer review , 2001 .
[4] Daniel Kennefick,et al. Einstein Versus the Physical Review , 2005 .
[5] David E. Stout,et al. Reasons Research Papers Are Rejected at Accounting Education Journals , 2006 .
[6] Martin Loosemore,et al. Gate-keepers or judges: peer reviews in construction management , 1999 .
[7] J. Olden,et al. Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? , 2006 .
[8] Juan Miguel Campanario,et al. Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2 , 1998 .
[9] Martin Enserink,et al. Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? , 2001, Science.
[10] R Smith,et al. Peer review: reform or revolution? , 1997, BMJ.
[11] Trish Groves. How can we get the best out of peer review , 2006 .
[12] F. Godlee,et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.
[13] Kristin Yiotis,et al. The Open Access Initiative: A New Paradigm for Scholarly Communications , 2005 .
[14] Finding important findings , 2003 .
[15] D. Paustenbach. Scientific Method Questioned , 2006, International journal of occupational and environmental health.
[16] Peer review and professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.
[17] Emma Marris,et al. Should journals police scientific fraud? , 2006, Nature.
[18] Peer Review: Time for a Change? , 2006 .
[19] J. Youngner. The scientific misconduct process: a scientist's view from the inside. , 1998, JAMA.
[20] Elihu D Richter,et al. Conflicts of interest and scientific integrity. , 2005, International journal of occupational and environmental health.
[21] Kevin K. Kumashiro,et al. Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal- Article Publication , 2005 .
[22] Sabah Alkass,et al. Rigour in research and peer-review: a reply , 1998 .
[23] J. Levine. Intellectual History as History , 2005 .
[24] C. Deangelis,et al. Thanking Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Readers—Constancy in a Time of Change , 2000 .
[25] D. Normile,et al. Cloning Researcher Says Work Is Flawed but Claims Results Stand , 2005, Science.
[26] Glenn Regehr,et al. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer , 2006, Medical education.
[27] John R. Rossiter,et al. Qualifying the importance of findings , 2003 .
[28] Juan Miguel Campanario,et al. Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1 , 1998 .
[29] M. Chin,et al. How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and other journals , 2006, Journal of General Internal Medicine.
[30] Theodora Bloom. Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature , 2006 .
[31] Harold L. Davis. Peer review on trial , 1975 .
[32] Toni Scarpa. Peer Review at NIH , 2006, Science.
[33] C. Gross,et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.
[34] Peter Fenn. Rigour in research and peer review , 1997 .
[35] Fraud and Deception in Publication of Scientific Research: Is There a Solution? HERA's Policy Change , 2006 .
[36] Tinker Ready. Plagiarize or perish? , 2006, Nature Medicine.
[37] Roy Schwartzman. The Forum: Peer Review as the Enforcement of Disciplinary Orthodoxy , 1997 .
[38] J. Morrison,et al. The case for open peer review , 2006, Medical education.
[39] M. Albanese. Three blind mice—might make good reviewers , 2006, Medical education.
[40] J. Armstrong. Publication of Research on Controversial Topics: The Early Acceptance Procedure , 1996 .
[41] Jim Giles. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process , 2006, Nature.
[42] James Hartley,et al. Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[43] T. Jefferson. Peer review and publishing: it's time to move the agenda on Elisabeth Wager , 2005, The Lancet.
[44] Mark A. Fine. Reflections on enhancing accountability in the peer-review process. , 1996 .
[45] L. Grivell,et al. Through a glass darkly , 2006, EMBO reports.
[46] Mark Ware,et al. Online submission and peer‐review systems , 2005, Learn. Publ..
[47] Debra L. Shapiro,et al. PEER REVIEW IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES: PREVALENCE AND EFFECTS OF REVIEWER HOSTILITY, BIAS, AND DISSENSUS , 2006 .
[48] J. Sieber. How can we research peer review , 2006 .
[49] Blinding reviewers to authors' identity does not improve quality , 1997 .