메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 5, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; AUTHOR SATISFACTION; BIOMED CENTRAL; HUMAN; INFECTION; INFLAMMATION; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MICROBIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SATISFACTION; BIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STANDARDS; WRITING;

EID: 84956896349     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (40)

References (17)
  • 1
    • 30944437076 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors
    • Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, et al. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006;295:314-17.
    • (2006) JAMA , vol.295 , pp. 314-317
    • Schroter, S.1    Tite, L.2    Hutchings, A.3
  • 2
    • 0033514073 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial
    • 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;318:23-7.
    • (1999) BMJ , vol.318 , pp. 23-27
    • Van Rooyen, S.1    Godlee, F.2    Evans, S.3
  • 3
    • 78149423721 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics
    • Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e13345.
    • (2010) PLoS ONE , vol.5 , pp. e13345
    • Bornmann, L.1    Daniel, H.D.2
  • 4
    • 26944440464 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Reviewer selection: Author or editor knows best?
    • Hurst J, Howard E, Wedzicha JA. Reviewer selection: author or editor knows best? Thorax 2005;60:799.
    • (2005) Thorax , vol.60 , pp. 799
    • Hurst, J.1    Howard, E.2    Wedzicha, J.A.3
  • 5
    • 80052316477 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Associate Editors at Journal of American Society of Nephrology. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors
    • Moore JL, Neilson EG, Siegel V, Associate Editors at Journal of American Society of Nephrology. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;22:1598-602.
    • (2011) J Am Soc Nephrol , vol.22 , pp. 1598-1602
    • Moore, J.L.1    Neilson, E.G.2    Siegel, V.3
  • 6
    • 34447509438 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors
    • Rivara FP, Cummings P, Ringold S, et al. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. J Pediatr 2007;151:202-5.
    • (2007) J Pediatr , vol.151 , pp. 202-205
    • Rivara, F.P.1    Cummings, P.2    Ringold, S.3
  • 7
    • 0034169752 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • A comparison of reports from reviewers chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process
    • Earnshaw JJ, Farndon JR, Guillou PJ, et al. A comparison of reports from reviewers chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2000;82(4 Suppl):133-5.
    • (2000) Ann R Coll Surg Engl , vol.82 , Issue.4 , pp. 133-135
    • Earnshaw, J.J.1    Farndon, J.R.2    Guillou, P.J.3
  • 9
    • 33745462719 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study
    • Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006;4:13.
    • (2006) BMC Med , vol.4 , pp. 13
    • Wager, E.1    Parkin, E.C.2    Tamber, P.S.3
  • 10
    • 84939234564 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models
    • Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, et al. A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. F1000Posters 2013;4:1252.
    • (2013) F1000Posters , vol.4 , pp. 1252
    • Kowalczuk, M.K.1    Dudbridge, F.2    Nanda, S.3
  • 11
    • 84970922527 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • BMC series journals. http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/bmcseries
    • BMC Series Journals
  • 12
    • 0033051347 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts
    • van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-9.
    • (1999) J Clin Epidemiol , vol.52 , pp. 625-629
    • Van Rooyen, S.1    Black, N.2    Godlee, F.3
  • 13
    • 0033963369 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Open peer review: A randomized controlled trial
    • Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, et al. Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:47-51.
    • (2000) Br J Psychiatry , vol.176 , pp. 47-51
    • Walsh, E.1    Rooney, M.2    Appleby, L.3
  • 14
    • 33646104670 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals
    • Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
    • (2006) J R Soc Med , vol.99 , pp. 178-182
    • Smith, R.1
  • 15
    • 0033514074 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Opening up BMJ peer review
    • Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999;318:4-5.
    • (1999) BMJ , vol.318 , pp. 4-5
    • Smith, R.1
  • 16
    • 84956899596 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • The EUQATOR Network
    • The EUQATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org/
  • 17
    • 84926636596 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Menage a Quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers
    • Snell RR. Menage a Quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0120838.
    • (2015) PLoS ONE , vol.10 , pp. e0120838
    • Snell, R.R.1


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.