-
1
-
-
0037024223
-
Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do?
-
Altman, D. G. 2002 Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287;21:2765-2767.
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, Issue.21
, pp. 2765-2767
-
-
Altman, D.G.1
-
2
-
-
0031709291
-
Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance
-
Baxt, W. G., J. F. Waeckerle, J. Berlin, and M. L. Callahm. 1989. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32:310-317.
-
(1989)
Annals of Emergency Medicine
, vol.32
, pp. 310-317
-
-
Baxt, W.G.1
Waeckerle, J.F.2
Berlin, J.3
Callahm, M.L.4
-
3
-
-
34248326549
-
Systems: Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature
-
Bloom, T. 2006. Systems: Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ index.html.
-
(2006)
Nature
-
-
Bloom, T.1
-
5
-
-
34250633460
-
-
Online journals challenge scientific peer review. Retrieved on November 19, 2006 from
-
Chang, A. 2006. Online journals challenge scientific peer review. Retrieved on November 19, 2006 from http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/ news/breaking_news/15655422.htm.
-
(2006)
-
-
Chang, A.1
-
6
-
-
34250637413
-
Peer Review
-
Debate
-
Debate. 2006. "Peer Review" In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerrevie w/debate/index.html
-
(2006)
Nature
-
-
-
7
-
-
23344445666
-
Revolutionized peer review?
-
Editorial. 2005. "Revolutionized peer review?". Nature Neuroscience 8; 4:397.
-
(2005)
Nature Neuroscience
, vol.8
, Issue.4
, pp. 397
-
-
Editorial1
-
9
-
-
0037024254
-
Making reviewers visible. Openness, accountability and credit
-
Godlee, F. 2002. Making reviewers visible. Openness, accountability and credit. JAMA287; 21:2762-2765.
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, Issue.21
, pp. 2762-2765
-
-
Godlee, F.1
-
10
-
-
0033514041
-
Evidence on peer review: Scientific quality control or smokescreen?
-
2 January
-
Goldbeck-Wood, S. 1999. Evidence on peer review: scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 318:44-45 (2 January). http://www.bmj.com/ cgi/reprint/318/7175/44.
-
(1999)
BMJ
, vol.318
, pp. 44-45
-
-
Goldbeck-Wood, S.1
-
11
-
-
0024550344
-
Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blinded trials of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis
-
Gotzxche, P. C. 1989. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blinded trials of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10:3159.
-
(1989)
Controlled Clinical Trials
, vol.10
, pp. 3159
-
-
Gotzxche, P.C.1
-
12
-
-
0013242073
-
Oldenburg's long shadow: Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing
-
ARL, at
-
Guédon, J. 2001. In Oldenburg's long shadow: Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Presentation to the May 2001 meeting of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), at http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html.
-
(2001)
Presentation to the May 2001 meeting of the Association of Research Libraries
-
-
Guédon, J.1
-
13
-
-
0037024214
-
Effects of editorial peer review
-
June 5
-
Jefferson, T., P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. 2002a. Effects of editorial peer review. JAMA June 5, 287; 21:2784-2786.
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, Issue.21
, pp. 2784-2786
-
-
Jefferson, T.1
Alderson, P.2
Wager, E.3
Davidoff, F.4
-
14
-
-
0037024264
-
Measuring quality of editorial peer review
-
June 5
-
Jefferson, T, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. 2002b. Measuring quality of editorial peer review. JAMA June 5, 287; 21:2786-2790.
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, Issue.21
, pp. 2786-2790
-
-
Jefferson, T.1
Wager, E.2
Davidoff, F.3
-
15
-
-
84861507368
-
Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research
-
Jefferson, T. 2006. Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/ debate/nature05031.html.
-
(2006)
Nature
-
-
Jefferson, T.1
-
16
-
-
73949102442
-
An open, two-stage peer-review journal
-
Koop T., and U. Pöschl. 2006. An open, two-stage peer-review journal. In Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ nature04988.html.
-
(2006)
Nature
-
-
Koop, T.1
Pöschl, U.2
-
17
-
-
27144461700
-
Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal-Article Publication
-
Kumashiro, K. K. 2005. Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal-Article Publication. Harvard Educational Review 75; 3:257-287.
-
(2005)
Harvard Educational Review
, vol.75
, Issue.3
, pp. 257-287
-
-
Kumashiro, K.K.1
-
18
-
-
0023216759
-
Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals
-
Pocock, S. J., M. D. Hughes, and R. J. Lee. 1987. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 317:426-432.
-
(1987)
New England Journal of Medicine
, vol.317
, pp. 426-432
-
-
Pocock, S.J.1
Hughes, M.D.2
Lee, R.J.3
-
19
-
-
33747698399
-
To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer
-
Regehr, G., and G. Bordage. 2006. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education 40:832-839.
-
(2006)
Medical Education
, vol.40
, pp. 832-839
-
-
Regehr, G.1
Bordage, G.2
-
20
-
-
21844503484
-
The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past
-
Schafner, A. C. 1994. The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries 13:239-47.
-
(1994)
Information Technology and Libraries
, vol.13
, pp. 239-247
-
-
Schafner, A.C.1
-
21
-
-
34250631840
-
A hybrid system of peer review
-
Sandewall, E. 2006. A hybrid system of peer review. In Nature. http://www.nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04994.html.
-
(2006)
Nature
-
-
Sandewall, E.1
-
22
-
-
0033514074
-
Opening up BMJ peer review
-
2 January
-
Smith, R. 1999 Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1318:4-5 (2 January). http://www.bmj.eom/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4.
-
(1999)
BMJ
, vol.1318
, pp. 4-5
-
-
Smith, R.1
-
23
-
-
0033514073
-
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomized trial
-
2 January
-
Van Rooyen S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomized trial. BMJ 318:23-27 (2 January). http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/318/ 7175/23.
-
(1999)
BMJ
, vol.318
, pp. 23-27
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Godlee, F.2
Evans, S.3
Black, N.4
Smith, R.5
|