What will happen to peer review?

Learned Publishing

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 15-20

  Williamson, Alex ^a  

^a British Medical Journal Technology Assessment Group   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037251619     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315103320995041     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Jefferson, T, Alderson, P., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002:287, 2784.
2. Ray, J., Berkwits, M. and Davidoff, F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. American Medical Journal 2000:109, 131.
3. Nemery, B. What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine? Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2001:58, 604.
4. Doherty, M. The Nottingham Office . . . one year on. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1993:52, 489.
5. Hearse, D. et al. Publishers' dawdle - A case for treatment? Cardiovascular Research 1992:26, 1.
6. Donovan, B. The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing 1998:11, 179.
7. Gilbert, J.R. et al. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA 1994:272, 39.
8. Van Koolfschooten, F. Conflicts of interest: can you believe what you read? Nature 2002:416, 360.
9. Godlee, F. et al. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 1998:280, 237.
10. COPE Report 1999, BMJ Publishing Group
11. COPE Report 2000, BMJ Publishing Group
12. COPE Report 2001, BMJ Publishing Group
13. Van Rooyen, S. et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999:318, 23.
14. Swan, A. What authors really want. The ALPSP Author Survey 1999.
15. Gura, T. Peer review unmasked. Nature 2002:416, 258.