Science behind reviewing

Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 656-658

  Marusic, Ana ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 84876852981     PISSN: 00309982     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Rennie D. Integrity in scientific publishing. Health Serv Res 2010; 45: 885-96.
2. Rennie D. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA 2002; 287: 2759-60.
3. National Library of Medicine. Medical Subject Headings. (Online) (Cited 2013 February 4). Available from URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh?term=peer%20review%2C %20research.
4. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;:MR000016.
5. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1977; 1: 161-75.
6. 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.
7. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006; 295: 314-7.
8. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, 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.
9. 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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729.
10. Houry D, Green S, Callaham M. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Med Educ 2012; 12: 83.
11. Vinther S, Nielsen OH, Rosenberg J, Keiding N, Schroeder TV. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger". Dan Med J 2012; 59: A4479.
12. Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, Rademaker A, Ratner D, Tregre B, et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol 2011; 165: 563-7.
13. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2007; 2: e332.
14. Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 2011; 343: d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783.
15. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1934-9.
16. Koren G, Fernandes A. Reviewers' bias against the null hypothesis: the reproductive hazard of binge drinking. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2010; 17: e281-3.