Standards in the face of uncertainty;Unverstandener standard

Deutsches Arzteblatt International

Volumn 109, Issue 51-52, 2012, Pages 900-902

  Mertens, Stephan ^a   Baethge, Christopher ^b  

^a Deutsches rzteblatt and Deutsches rzteblatt International   (Germany)

^b Science and Medical Section of Deutsches Ärzteblatt   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; PEER REVIEW; STANDARD; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; INTERNATIONALITY; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH;

EID: 84873966245     PISSN: 18660452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0900     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Peer review survey 2009: full report. www.senseaboutscience.org/ data/files/Peer-Review/Peer-Review-Survey-Final-3.pdf (last accessed June 2012)
2. Research Information Network: Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. http:// rinarchive.jisc-collections. ac.uk/our-work/communicating-anddisseminating- research/activities-costs-and- funding-flowsscholarly- commu 2008 (last accessed August 2012).
3. Gotzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee, F, Lundh A: Adequacy of authors replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ 2010; 341: c3926.
4. Mark Ware Consulting: Peer review in scholarly journals:perspective of the scholarly community-an international study. www.publish ingresearch.net/ documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf 2008 (last accessed August 2012).
5. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN: Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 1998; 280: 237-40.
6. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1998; 280: 234-7.
7. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, and the peer investigaters: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? JAMA 1998; 280: 240-2.
8. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommenda - tions: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999; 318: 23-7.
9. Schroter S, Godlee F, Black N, Osorio L, Evans S, Smith R: What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008; 101: 507-14.
10. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R: Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 673-5.
11. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF: Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 32: 318-22.
12. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (review) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, issue 2.
13. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM: Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010; 5: e10072.
14. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis onf inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS ONE 2010; 5: e14331.
15. Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J: A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. J R Soc Med 2000; 93: 164-7.
16. Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ: The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographic bias. Cardiovasc Res 2002; 56: 339-46.