The ups and downs of peer review.
暂无分享,去创建一个
D. Benos | E. Bashari | J. M. Chaves | A. Gaggar | Niren Kapoor | Martin LaFrance | R. Mans | David Mayhew | Sara McGowan | Abigail M Polter | Y. Qadri | S. Sarfare | Kevin Schultz | R. Splittgerber | Jason W Stephenson | Cristy Tower | R. G. Walton | Alexander Zotov | Abigail M. Polter | Edlira Bashari | Robert Mans | D. J. Benos | Jose M. Chaves | R. Grace Walton
[1] F. Ingelfinger. Peer review in biomedical publication. , 1974, The American journal of medicine.
[2] Bruce E. Wampold,et al. Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: Is there a (statistically) significant relationship? , 1982 .
[3] J. Armstrong,et al. Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
[4] S. Ceci,et al. Peer review--a study of reliability. , 1982, Change.
[5] C. Tipton. MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE???1984 , 1984 .
[6] Erdem I. Cantekin,et al. Biomedical Information, Peer Review, and Conflict of Interest as They Influence Public Health , 1989 .
[7] L. Hargens,et al. Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences. , 1990, JAMA.
[8] A. Weller. Editorial peer review in US medical journals. , 1990, JAMA.
[9] Margaret E. Lloyd,et al. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.
[10] R. Fletcher,et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. , 1990, JAMA.
[11] A. Yankauer,et al. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? , 1990, JAMA.
[12] D. Kronick. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.
[13] J Smith,et al. What do peer reviewers do? , 1990, JAMA.
[14] E. Knoll,et al. The communities of scientists and journal peer review. , 1990, JAMA.
[15] J. Burnham. The evolution of editorial peer review. , 1990, JAMA.
[16] Philip W. Goetz. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica , 1991 .
[17] D. Southgate. The ethics of peer review , 1992, British Journal of Nutrition.
[18] S. Goodman,et al. Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[19] J. R. Gilbert,et al. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.
[20] E. Lawson,et al. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. , 1994, JAMA.
[21] S Lock,et al. Does Editorial Peer Review Work? , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[22] D. Laband,et al. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. , 1994, JAMA.
[23] J. Kassirer,et al. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.
[24] A. Weller,et al. A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals. , 1996, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.
[25] G. Omenn,et al. The messenger under attack -- intimidation of researchers by special-interest groups. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.
[26] J. Armstrong,et al. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation , 1997 .
[27] F. Davidoff,et al. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. , 1998, JAMA.
[28] F. Godlee,et al. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.
[29] C. Bingham,et al. Peer review on the Internet: launching eMJA peer review study 2 , 1998, The Medical journal of Australia.
[30] J F Waeckerle,et al. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. , 1998, JAMA.
[31] S. Krimsky,et al. Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications. , 1998, JAMA.
[32] D. Rennie,et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. , 1998, JAMA.
[33] N. Black,et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. , 1998, JAMA.
[34] W. Stehbens,et al. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. , 1999, Medical hypotheses.
[35] F. Godlee,et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.
[36] J. H. Kilwein,et al. Biases in medical literature , 1999, Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.
[37] T. Jefferson,et al. Peer Review in Health Sciences , 1999 .
[38] T. Rumsey. One editor's views on conflict of interest. , 1999, Journal of animal science.
[39] Faith McLellan,et al. Ethical issues in biomedical publication , 2000 .
[40] Peer-review meeting participants urge greater accountability , 2001, The Lancet.
[41] Sara Schroter,et al. Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[42] Richard Horton,et al. Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. , 2002, JAMA.
[43] Dale J Benos,et al. How to review a paper. , 2003, Advances in physiology education.
[44] M. Hojat,et al. Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process , 2003, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.
[45] Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas,et al. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication , 2010, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics.
[46] Carlos Alberto Guimarães,et al. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication , 2008, Revista espanola de cardiologia.
[47] David J. Kosek,et al. Ethics and scientific publication. , 2005, Advances in physiology education.
[48] John Spencer,et al. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal , 2005, Medical education.
[49] M. Isohanni. Peer review – still the well‐functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research , 2005, Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica.
[50] Constance Holden. Stem cell research. Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations. , 2005, Science.
[51] J. Giles. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head , 2005, Nature.
[52] Constance Holden. Korean Cloner Admits Lying About Oocyte Donations , 2005, Science.
[53] A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[54] Francis L. Macrina. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research , 2005 .
[55] Ulrich Pöschl,et al. An open, two-stage peer-review journal , 2006 .
[56] R Brian Haynes,et al. Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. , 2006, JAMA.
[57] Chris Tyler. Sense about science , 2006 .
[58] A. Mccook. Is Peer Review Broken , 2006 .
[59] Jennifer Couzin,et al. ... And How the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors , 2006, Science.
[60] Ermenegyldo Munhoz Junior. Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas , 2006 .
[61] Systems - Opening up the process , 2006 .
[62] C. Gross,et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.
[63] Fiona Godlee,et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.
[64] J. PérezMartín,et al. [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 2008, Revista alergia Mexico.