Evaluation of peer review in biomedical publication

Annals of Saudi Medicine

Volumn 21, Issue 5-6, 2001, Pages 275-282

  El Munshid, Hassan A ^a  

^a IMAM ABDULRAHMAN BIN FAISAL UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICINE; CULTURAL FACTOR; EDITORIAL; ELECTRONICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SCREENING; SEX DIFFERENCE;

EID: 0035741185     PISSN: 02564947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2001.275     Document Type: Editorial

References (42)

1. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism
2. The evolution of editorial peer review
3. Selected Proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication
4. The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (editorial)
5. Congress on Biomedical Peer Review. History, Ethics, and Plans for the Future (editorial)
6. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal
7. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts
8. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions
9. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Netherlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
10. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process. Characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper
11. Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts
12. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer review performance
13. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper
14. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
15. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
16. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
17. The community of referees
18. What do peer reviewers do?
19. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language
20. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
21. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias
22. Are reviewers biased against unconventional therapy?
23. The effect of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review
24. Is there gender bias in JAMA'S peer review process?
25. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions
26. US and non-US submissions. An analysis of reviewer bias
27. Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review
28. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy
29. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
30. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review
31. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
32. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial
33. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial
34. Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success?
35. Effect of open peer review on quality of review and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomized trial
36. Open peer review: A randomized controlled trial
37. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review
38. Are scientific papers out of date (editorial)?
39. NIH's online publishing venture ready for launch
40. PubMed Central: Government as publisher?
41. Publishers discuss European E-print site