Supporting and enhancing peer review in the BJGP

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 64, Issue 624, 2014, Pages

  Moore, Abigail ^a   Jones, Roger ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL COLLEGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FRAUD; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SHORT SURVEY; STUDY DESIGN; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; GENERAL PRACTICE; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; FEEDBACK; GENERAL PRACTICE; GREAT BRITAIN; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84904860699     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X680713     Document Type: Short Survey

References (12)

1. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53(4): 386-389.
2. Marusic A, Lukic IK, Marusic M, et al. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet. Croat Med J 2002; 43(3): 286-289. (Pubitemid 34665766)
3. 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; 18: Mr000016.
4. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA 1990; 263(10): 1371-1376. (Pubitemid 20069943)
5. 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(3): 314-317. (Pubitemid 43112960)
6. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998; 280(3): 229-231. (Pubitemid 28493890)
7. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, et al. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108(7): 979-985. (Pubitemid 44498261)
8. Feurer ID, Becker GJ, Picus D, et al. Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrument. JAMA 1994; 272(2): 98-100. (Pubitemid 24206036)
9. Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden MB. The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study. Lancet 1998; 352(9126): 441-445. (Pubitemid 28362791)
10. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52(7): 625-629. (Pubitemid 29281657)
11. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14(10): 622-624. (Pubitemid 29506147)
12. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2781-2783. (Pubitemid 34594129)