Peer review in PLoS Medicine

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 0001-0002

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; EDITOR; EDITORIAL; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 33846698341     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040058     Document Type: Editorial

References (12)

1. Callaham ML, Tercier J (2007) The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 4: e40. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
2. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280: 231-233.
3. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, et al. (2004) Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 328: 673.
4. Godlee F, Gale CR Martyn CN ( 1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280: 237-240.
5. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney S, Davidoff F (2006) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews 4: MR000016.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub2.
6. Kennedy D (2006) Editorial retraction. Science 311: 336.
7. [No authors listed] (2002) Reflections on scientific fraud. Nature 419: 417.
8. Tipler FJ (2003) Refereed journals: Do they insure quality or enforce orthodoxy? International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Available: http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/tipler_refereed_journals.php. Accessed 29 December 2006.
9. Kennedy D (2006) Responding to fraud. Science 314: 1353.
10. Wikipedia (2006) Peer review. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Peer_review. Accessed 29 December 2006.
11. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 318: 23-27.
12. Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten simple rules for reviewers PLoS Comput Biol 2: e110. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110