-
1
-
-
30944437076
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
-
BMC series journals. http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/bmcseries
-
BMC Series Journals
-
-
-
12
-
-
0033051347
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
-
The EUQATOR Network
-
The EUQATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org/
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
84926636596
-
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
|