Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer

British Dental Journal

Volumn 220, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 167-168

  Faggion, C M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT;

EID: 84959284235     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: 17417503     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.131     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. Birukou A, Wakeling J R, Bartolini C et al. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci 2011; 5: 56
2. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Bloom T. The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: A call for research. JAMA 2015; 313: 2031-2032
3. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Bloom T. Eighth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. BMJ 2015; 350: h2411
4. O'Dowd A. Journals' peer review system sometimes overlooks important research. BMJ 2014; 349: g7797
5. Sterne J A C, Egger M, Moher D (eds). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In Higgins J P T, Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available online at http://handbook.cochrane.org/(accessed January 2016
6. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Inf Sci 2013; 64: 132-161
7. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans S J. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010; 341: c5729