A comparative study of scientific evaluation of abstracts submitted to the 1995 European Association for the Study of the Liver Copenhagen Meeting

Danish Medical Bulletin

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 317-319

  Vilstrup, Hendrik ^b   Sørensen, Henrik Toft ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS   (Denmark)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT REPORT; ARTICLE; DENMARK; EUROPE; LIVER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM;

DENMARK; EUROPE; EVALUATION STUDIES; LIVER; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 0031863553     PISSN: 09078916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Smith R. Problems with peer review and alternatives. BMJ 1988; 296: 774-7.
2. Smith R. Promoting research into peer review. BMJ 1994; 309: 143-4.
3. Altman D. The scandal of medical research. BMJ 1994; 308: 283-4.
4. Kaissirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994; 272: 96-7.
5. Laland DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 1994; 272: 147-9.
6. Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? JAMA 1994; 272: 117-8.
7. Andrews Jr JS. Does good peer review assure good epidemiology? J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44 (suppl I): 1315-45.
8. Van den Beent FCHD, Van Raan AFJ. Evaluating research proposal. Nature 1995; 375: 272.
9. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA 1990; 263: 1338-40.
10. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982; 5: 187-255.