Peer review - Process, perspectives and the path ahead

Journal of Postgraduate Medicine

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 210-214

  Gitanjali, B ^a  

^a JAWAHARLAL INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENTIALITY; DECISION MAKING; HISTORY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RESPONSIBILITY; TRAINING; WRITING;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS;

EID: 0035722974     PISSN: 00223859     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process
2. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine
3. Manuscript Peer Review - A Guide for Health Care Professionals
4. Peer review of the biomedical literature
5. The evolution of editorial peer review
6. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism
7. What do peer reviewers do?
8. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
9. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non - Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
10. What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
11. Ethical and quasi-ethical issues in medical editing and publishing
12. Open peer review: A randomized controlled trial
13. Does editorial peer review work?
14. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
15. Peer review and editorial decision-making
16. The editors' labours: Separating the wheat from the chaff
17. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts
18. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable
19. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine
20. Blind versus nonblind review: Survey of selected medical journals
21. Is there a case for an international medical scientific press council?
22. US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias
23. Peer review: Reform or revolution
24. The less acceptable face of bias
25. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance
26. The Lancet's ombudsman
27. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study
28. Editorial freedom and integrity
29. Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda