Peer review - The newcomers' perspective

PLoS Biology

Volumn 3, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1534-1535

  Mainguy, Gaell ^a   Motamedi, Mohammad R ^a   Mietchen, Daniel ^a  

^a World Academy of Young Scientists

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIVILIZATION; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SHORT SURVEY; ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 24944590802     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326     Document Type: Short Survey

References (6)

1. Wenneras C, Wold A (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341-343.
2. Abate T (1996) What's the verdict on peer review? Available: http://www.columbia.edu/ cu/21stC/issue-1.1/peer.htm. Accessed 20 July 2005.
3. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA 263: 1371-1376.
4. Laband DN, Piette MJ (1994) A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 272: 147-149.
5. Katz DS, Proto, AV, Olmsted WW (2002) Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: Our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Am J Roentgenol 179: 1415-1417.
6. Davidoff F (1998) Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Ann Intern Med 128: 66-68.