A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts

Hand

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 37-44

  Larson, Bradley P ^a   Chung, Kevin C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Peer review; Research methods; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857236937     PISSN: 15589447     EISSN: 15589455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11552-012-9392-6     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Blaustein JD. Fraud: just say no! Endocrinology. 2010; 151: 1-3.
2. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008; 23: 4-6.
3. Christensen NB, Yokomizo A. How to peer review. Int J Urol. 2010; 17: 754.
4. Coats AJ. Ethical authorship and publishing. Int J Cardiol. 2009; 131: 149-50.
5. Cossu R. Anonymous but fully recognised. Waste Manag. 2010; 30: 1-3.
6. Fisher RS, Powers LE. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside. Epilepsia. 2004; 45: 889-94.
7. Freedman JE. Promoting ethical conduct in the publication of research. Cardiovasc Ther. 2008; 26: 89-90.
8. Freshwater D. Editors and publishing: integrity, trust and faith. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2006; 13: 1-2.
9. Froman RD. Hitting the bull's eye rather than shooting yourself between the eyes. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31: 399-401.
10. Froman RD. Blinded review revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010; 33: 273-5.
11. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a publisher's perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2007;(152): 1-26.
12. Grivell L. Through a glass darkly: the present and the future of editorial peer review. EMBO Rep. 2006; 7: 567-70.
13. Groves T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ. 2010; 341: c6424.
14. Heddle NM, Ness PM. Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities. Transfusion. 2009; 49: 2265-8.
15. Hoppin Jr FG. How I review an original scientific paper. Rev Mal Respir. 2003; 20: 671-8.
16. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2784-6.
17. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2786-90.
18. Johnson JT, Niparko JK, Levine PA, et al. Standards for ethical publication. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007; 133: 7-8.
19. Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010; 341: c6425.
20. Klein DF, Glick ID. Conflict of interest, journal review, and publication policy. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008; 33: 3023-6.
21. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990; 263: 1321-2.
22. Lemann Jr J. Serving as a reviewer. Kidney Int. 2002; 62: 1081-7.
23. Loonen MP. Alternative peer review system: peer agreement system. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010; 63: 1931-2.
24. Manske PR. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. J Hand Surg Am. 2006; 31: 1051-5.
25. McCalmont TH. Crystal clear. J Cutan Pathol. 2011; 38: 540-1.
26. Minion D, Sorial E, Endean E. Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts. J Vasc Surg. 2007; 46: 391-3.
27. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994; 272: 149-51.
28. Oyesiku NM. The registrar. Neurosurgery. 2010; 67: 1165-6.
29. Pitkin RM. Blinded manuscript review: an idea whose time has come? Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 85: 781-2.
30. PLoS Medicine Editors. Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e199.
31. Pollock RE, Ewer MS. The integrity of authorship: doing the right thing. Cancer. 2010; 116: 3986-7.
32. Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006; 34: 92-9.
33. Reider B. Fabrication, falsification et al. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 445-7.
34. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA. 1998; 280: 300-2.
35. Shashok K. Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 3.
36. Siegelman SS. The genesis of modern science: contributions of scientific societies and scientific journals. Radiology. 1998; 208: 9-16.
37. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 2010; 12 Suppl 4: S13.
38. Thomas SP. The long journey to publication: some thoughts on the journal review process. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1998; 19: 415-8.
39. Tierney AJ. Reviewers support blinding in peer review. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 64: 113.
40. Triadafilopoulos G. The manuscript review process. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 64: S23-5.
41. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010; 341: c5729.
42. Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35: 348-53.
43. Wagner AK, Boninger ML, Levy C, et al. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: 790-802.
44. Webb TJ, O'Hara B, Freckleton RP. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol Evol. 2008; 23: 351-3. author reply 353-4.
45. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle JF, et al. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2790-3.
46. Working double-blind. Nature. 2008; 451: 605-6.
47. Yoshida Y. Peer review system: any other choice? Int J Hematol. 2006; 83: 191-2.