Peer review

Bone and Joint Journal

Volumn 96 B, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 436-441

  Twaij, H ^a   Oussedik, S ^a   Hoffmeyer, P ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; EDUCATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FRAUD; HUMAN; INTERNET; LIKERT SCALE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PATENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SATISFACTION; SOCIOLOGY; STUDY DESIGN; WORKLOAD;

FRAUD; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84898451570     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20494408     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33041     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Jain AK. Peer review: Heart and soul of scientific publication. Indian J Orthop 2009;43:3-5.
2. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ 2003;27:47-52.
3. Brand RA. Reviewing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:2622-2625.
4. Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a "down-to-earth" approach. Acad Psychiatry 2004;28:81-87. (Pubitemid 39079442)
5. The British Academy Peer Review: the challenges for the humanities and social sciences. http//:www.britac.ac.uk/policy/peer-review.cfm (date last accessed 6 March 2014).
6. Boden M. Peer Review: A Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils from the Working Group on Peer Review. 1990:81.
7. The Royal Society. Peer Review - An assessment of recent developments. 1995:10.
8. Research Councils UK. Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and Effectiveness of Peer Review Project. https://www.rcuk.ac.uk (date last accessed 6 March 2014).
9. Sylvia LM, Herbel JL. Manuscript peer review - a guide for health care professionals. Pharmacotherapy 2001;21:395-404. (Pubitemid 32275266)
10. Björk B- C, Roos A, Lauri M. Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research 2009;14:391.
11. Research Information Network. Peer review: A Guide for Researchers. 2010:16.
12. Robin ED, Burke CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest 1987;91:252-257. (Pubitemid 17010941)
13. Mulligan A. Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncol 2005;41:135-141.
14. Hastings R. Medical researcher, Steven Eaton, who faked cancer data jailed for three months. The Independent, 17 April 2013. http://www.independent. co.uk/news/uk/crime/medical-researcher-steven-eaton-who-faked-cancer-data- jailed-for-three-months-8577395.html (date last accessed 29 January 2014).
15. Lohmander S, Aaron RK, Adams MA, et al. Acknowledgement to Reviewers 2008. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage 2009;17:139-143.
16. Lohmander S. Acknowledgement to Reviewers 2012. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage 2013;21:1-6.
17. Richardson ML. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:W213-W216.
18. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982;5:187-195.
19. No authors listed. Crosscheck http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index. html (date last accessed 28 Jan 2014).
20. Snodgrass RT. Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing. ACM Trans Database Syst 2007;32.
21. Hing CB, Higgs D, Hooper L, Donell ST, Song F. A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication. J Orthop Surg Res 2011;6:19.
22. Ware M. Peer review?: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, 2008:1-20.
23. Blank R. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. Am Econ Rev 1991;81:1041-1067.
24. Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D. Peer review - the newcomers' perspective. PLoS Biol 2005;3:326.
25. Yankauer A. How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health 1991;81:843-845.
26. Alam M, Kim NA, Havey J, et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:563-567.
27. Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews. Perspect Psychol Sci 2009;4:62-64.
28. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998;280:240-242. (Pubitemid 28493894)
29. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-27. (Pubitemid 29188893)
30. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234-237. (Pubitemid 28493892)
31. Giles J. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 2005;438:900-901.
32. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 2007;31:145-152.
33. deBronkart D. How the e-patient community helped save my life: an essay by Dave deBronkart. BMJ 2013;346:1990.
34. Phillips A. Encyclopaedia Britannica Vs Wikipedia: A Battle Already Lost? (Infographic). Urban Times, 17 March 2012. http://urbantimes.co/2012/03/ encyclopaedia-britannica-vs-wikipedia-a-battle-already-lost-infographic/ (date last accessed 29 January 2014).
35. No authors listed. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/ (date last accessed 6 February 2014).
36. Science and Technology Committee. Science and Technology Peer review in scientific publications. 2011:105.
37. No authors listed. arXiv. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv (date last accessed 29 January 2014).
38. No authors listed. Creative Commons. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (date last accessed 6 February 2014).
39. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999;318:4-5. (Pubitemid 29188889)
40. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, et al. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51. (Pubitemid 30051088)
41. No authors listed. Peer review and fraud. Nature 2006;444:971-972.
42. No authors listed. Overview: Nature's peer review trial. http://www.nature.com/nature/peer review/debate/nature05535.html (date last accessed 6 March 2014).
43. No Authors listed. Cureus. http://www.cureus.com/ (date last accessed 6 February 2014).
44. No Authors listed. Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme. https://www.iscp.ac.uk/ (date last accessed 6 February 2014).