How to write a peer review

Hospital Medicine

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 172-175

  Paice, Elisabeth ^a  

^a Thames Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONFIDENTIALITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; REVIEW;

ADULT; CONFIDENTIALITY; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 0035292128     PISSN: 14623935     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12968/hosp.2001.62.3.2392     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Albert T ( 1997) Why bother with peer review? Lancet 350: S22
2. Albert T (1999) Thinkina the unthinkable. B r Med J 319: 861
3. Bailar K. Patterson K (1985) Journal peer review: the need for a research aucnda. ,V Enl JMeii 312: 645-57
4. DavidotT F (1996) Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind Icadinu the blinded. Ann Intent Mal 12: 66-8
5. Evans AT. McNutt RA. Fletchcr SW, Fleteher RH ( 1993) Characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good reviews. Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomédical Publication. American Medical Association. Chicago: 11
6. Goldbcck-Wood S (P998) What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? The 13MJ invites you to join its peer review process, fir Meil .1 316: 86
7. Horrohin DF ( 1990) The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMAIS: 1438-41
8. Huslon P (1994) Information for peer reviewers. C\iii.McilAsxM-.nSO: 1211-16
9. Huston P (I996a) C'ase reports: information for authors and peer reviewers. t\m Meil Assm- .1 154:43-4
10. Huslon P (1996b) Reporting on surveys: intbr-mation for authors and peer reviewers. Can Med AX.IM-J 154: 1695-8
11. Jean-Pierre ENP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke A, John PM (1996) Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor (ieneeskunde. Lancet 348: 1480 3
12. Justice AC'. Berlin JA. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Goodman SN (1994) Do readers and peer reviewers aurcc on manuscript quality? JAMA 272:117-19
13. Justice AC. ("ho MK. Winker MA. lierlin JA. Reunie D (1998) Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:240-2
14. Laband D (1994) A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 272: 147-9
15. Loek S ( 1994) Does editorial peer review work? Ann Intern Med : 60 61
16. Reunie D (1998) Peer review in Pramie. JAMA 280:214-5
17. Rowan M (1997) Qualitative research articles: information for authors and peer reviewers. Can Mcil ASSOL-J 157: 1442 6
18. Smith R (1997) Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review, fir A//,/315: 759 60
19. Smith R ( 1999) Opening up BMJ peer review: A beuinnin that should lead to complete transparency. /?;MctlJ318: 4 5
20. Sweitzer BJ, Cullen D.I (1994) How well docs a journal's peer re\ iew process function?: A survey of authors" opinions. JAMA 272: 152 3
21. van Rooyen S. (iodlee F. Evans S. Smith R, Black N (1998) Effect of blinding and unmaskine on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. JAMA 280: 234 7
22. van Rooyen S. (iodlee F. Fvans S. Black N. Smith R ( 1999) Kffect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. Br Mcil./ 318: 23-7