The evaluation of peer-review quality

Learned Publishing

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 85-91

  Van Rooyen, Susan ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011053079     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315101300059413     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Booth, C. C. Medical communication: the old and the new. The development of medical journals in Britain. BMJ 1982:285,105-8.
2. Zuckerman, H. and Merton, R. K. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalism, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 1971:9, 66-100.
3. Lock, S. A Difficult Balance - Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: BMJ, 1991.
4. Ingelfinger, F. J. Peer review in biomedical publication. American Journal of Medicine 1974:56, 686-92.
5. Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review: selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997:278, 1317-1441.
6. Fox, T. F. Crisis in Communication. London: Athlone Press, 1965.
7. Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ, 1999.
8. van Rooyen, S., Black, N. and Godlee, F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999:52, 625-9.
9. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., Evans, S. and Black, N. The effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998:280, 234-7.
10. Fletcher, R. H. and Fletcher, S. W. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 1997:3, 35-43.
11. McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H. and Fletcher, S. W. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990:263, 371-6.
12. Justice, A. C. et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998:280, 240-2.
13. Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R. and Evans, S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? Journal of the American Medical Association 1998:280, 231-4.
14. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N. and Smith, R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999:318, 23-7.
15. van Rooyen, S. A critical examination of the peer review process. Learned Publishing 1998:11, 85-91.