Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike

Andrology

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 531-532

  Carrell, Douglas T ^a   Rajpert De Meyts, Ewa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b University of Copenhagen   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANDROLOGY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONTENT VALIDITY; CURRICULUM; EDITORIAL; HEALTH SCIENCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MOTIVATION; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

AUTHORSHIP; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84879480016     PISSN: 20472919     EISSN: 20472927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00105.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (4)

1. Poschl U. (2010) Interactive open access publishing and peer review: the effectiveness and perspectives of transparency and self-regulation in scientific communication and evaluation. Liber Q 19, 293-314.
2. Rosenbaum P. (2005) On the value of being a journal reviewer. Dev Med Child Neur 47, 147.
3. Solomon DJ. (2007) The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. J Electronic Publishing 10, 3998.
4. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L & Wilkinson G. (2000) Open peer review: a randomized control trial. Br J Psychiatry 176, 47-51.