-
2
-
-
0032527568
-
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
-
Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-3.
-
(1998)
JAMA
, vol.280
, pp. 231-233
-
-
Black, N.1
Van Rooyen, S.2
Godlee, F.3
Smith, R.4
Evans, S.5
-
3
-
-
0032527564
-
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
-
Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234-7.
-
(1998)
JAMA
, vol.280
, pp. 234-237
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Godlee, F.2
Evans, S.3
Smith, R.4
Black, N.5
-
4
-
-
0033514073
-
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: Randomised trial
-
Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7.
-
(1999)
BMJ
, vol.318
, pp. 23-27
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Godlee, F.2
Evans, S.3
Black, N.4
Smith, R.5
-
5
-
-
1642325520
-
Effects of training on the quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial
-
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Smith R, Carpenter J, Godlee F. Effects of training on the quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673-5.
-
(2004)
BMJ
, vol.328
, pp. 673-675
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Black, N.2
Evans, S.3
Smith, R.4
Carpenter, J.5
Godlee, F.6
-
7
-
-
1642525278
-
Does the type of competing interest statement affect reader perceptions of the credibility of research? A randomised trial
-
Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, Smith, R, Barratt H. Does the type of competing interest statement affect reader perceptions of the credibility of research? A randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328:742-3.
-
(2004)
BMJ
, vol.328
, pp. 742-743
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Morris, J.2
Chaudhry, S.3
Smith, R.4
Barratt, H.5
-
8
-
-
4444243011
-
Editors declaration of their own conflicts of interest: A survey
-
Haivas I, Waechter F, Schroter S, Smith R. Editors declaration of their own conflicts of interest: a survey. CMAJ 2004;171:475-6.
-
(2004)
CMAJ
, vol.171
, pp. 475-476
-
-
Haivas, I.1
Waechter, F.2
Schroter, S.3
Smith, R.4
-
9
-
-
2942616765
-
Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: Two cross-sectional surveys
-
Schroter S, Barratt H, Smith J. Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross-sectional surveys. BMJ 2004;328:1350-3.
-
(2004)
BMJ
, vol.328
, pp. 1350-1353
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Barratt, H.2
Smith, J.3
-
10
-
-
33748036504
-
How should general medical journals present scientific papers? A survey of readers and authors
-
in press
-
Müllner M, Waechter F, Schroter S, Squire B. How should general medical journals present scientific papers? A survey of readers and authors. CMAJ (in press).
-
CMAJ
-
-
Müllner, M.1
Waechter, F.2
Schroter, S.3
Squire, B.4
-
11
-
-
17144406000
-
Perceptions of open access publishing: Interviews with journal authors
-
Schroter S, Tite L, Smith R. Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors. BMJ 2005;330:756-9.
-
(2005)
BMJ
, vol.330
, pp. 756-759
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Tite, L.2
Smith, R.3
-
12
-
-
0037024221
-
How statistical expertise is utilized in medical research
-
Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is utilized in medical research. JAMA 2002;287:2817-20.
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, pp. 2817-2820
-
-
Altman, D.G.1
Goodman, S.N.2
Schroter, S.3
|