Fortifying the external peer review: An editorial perspective

Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 2-3

  Sohail, Saba ^a  

^a NONE   (Pakistan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; PAKISTAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REWARD; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PAKISTAN; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84921443590     PISSN: 1022386X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. MC Med 2014; 12:179.
2. Ardakan MA, Mirzaie SA, Sheikhshoaei F. The peer-review process for articles in Iran's scientific journals. J Scholarly Publishing 2011; 42:243-61.
3. Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, London. 2008.
4. Jawaid SA. Authors-the most dangerous pressure group. Pak J Med Sci 2014; 30:1177-9.
5. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review; a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014; 12:128.
6. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobranszki. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for postpublication peer review. Account Res 2015; 22:22-40.