Peer review: A constantly-evolving scientific process

Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  de Araújo, Claudio Gil Soares ^a  

^a GAMA FILHO UNIVERSITY   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Peer review; Periodicals as topic; Research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GRADUATE; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CARDIOLOGY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84857978834     PISSN: 0066782X     EISSN: 16784170     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0066-782X2012000200017     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Barrio JR. Consensus science and the peer review. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11(5):293.
2. Triaridis S, Kyrgidis A. Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing. Hippokratia. 2010;14(Suppl 1):5-12.
3. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2786-90.
4. Hazlewood CF. Current peer review systems: a problem for innovative approaches in science. Cardiovasc Dis. 1974;1(2):67-9.
5. Horrobin DF. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2001;22(2):51-2.
6. van der Wall EE. Peer review under review room for improvemenerlands Heart J. 2009;17(5):187.
7. Walbot V. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? J Biol. 2009;8(3):24.
8. Yaffe MB. Re-reviewing peer review. Sci Signal. 2009;2(85):eg11.
9. Peer review--do unto others. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(12):1249.
10. Henderson M. Problems with peer review. BMJ. 2010;340:c1409.
11. Moraes Jr HV, Rocha EM, Chamon W. Funcionamento e desempenho do sistema de revisão por pares. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2010;73(6):487-8.
12. Evora PRB, Celotto AC. Peer review, science, young investigators feelings and frustrations. Acta Cir Bras. 2011;26(1):77-8.
13. Peterson P. Teaching peer review. JAMA. 1973;224(6):884-5.
14. Gough NR. Training for peer review. Sci Signal. 2009;2(85):tr2.
15. Rangachari PK. Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: learning by doing. Adv Physiol Educ. 2010;34(3):137-44.
16. Paice E. How to write a peer review. Hosp Med. 2001;62(3):172-5.
17. Christensen NB, Yokomizo A. How to peer review. Int J Urol. 2010;17(9):754.
18. Abbott A. A how-to for peer review. Nature. 2011;473(7345):17.
19. Zucker RS. A peer review how-to. Science. 2008;319(5859):32.
20. Navalta JW, Lyons TS. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers. Adv Physiol Educ. 2010;34(4):170-3.
21. van Wezenbeck E, Lardee J, Brumfield G. How editors find and choose reviewers - the find reviewers tool. Elsevier - Reviewers'Update: Elsevier; 2011.
22. Weber EJ, Katz P P, Waeckerle J F, Callaham ML. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2790-3.
23. Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med. 2000;109(2):131-5.
24. White C. Little evidence for effectiveness of scientific peer review. BMJ. 2003;326(7383):241.