The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.

[1]  J. Wilson.  Peer review and publication. Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978. , 1978, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[2]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  D. Kronick.  Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.

[4]  J. Burnham.  The evolution of editorial peer review. , 1990, JAMA.

[5]  S. Siegelman,et al.  Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Special report. , 1991, Radiology.

[6]  Focus on Germany. , 1994, Asepsis.

[7]  J. R. Gilbert,et al.  Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.

[8]  B F Scharschmidt,et al.  Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation. , 1994, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[9]  D. Rennie,et al.  The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. , 1994, JAMA.

[10]  T. Opthof,et al.  Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. , 1997, Cardiovascular research.

[11]  C. Wennerås,et al.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.

[12]  A. Link.  US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. , 1998, JAMA.

[13]  T. Opthof,et al.  The role of a reviewer in editorial decision-making , 1999 .

[14]  T. Opthof,et al.  Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. , 2000, Cardiovascular research.

[15]  Ruben Coronel,et al.  Submissions, impact factor, reviewer's recommendations and geographical bias within the peer review system (1997-2002): focus on Germany. , 2002, Cardiovascular research.