-
1
-
-
84922571449
-
The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics
-
Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Odibo AO, Chauhan SP, Smulian JC, and Y. Oyelese The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics Am J Obstet Gynecol 211 2014 703.e1 703.e5
-
(2014)
Am J Obstet Gynecol
, vol.211
, pp. 703e1-703e5
-
-
Vintzileos, A.M.1
Ananth, C.V.2
Odibo, A.O.3
Chauhan, S.P.4
Smulian, J.C.5
Oyelese, Y.6
-
3
-
-
84928667465
-
Emerging trends in peer review - A survey
-
R. Walker, and Rocha da Silva P Emerging trends in peer review - a survey Front Neurosci 9 2015 169
-
(2015)
Front Neurosci
, vol.9
, pp. 169
-
-
Walker, R.1
Da Silva, P.R.2
-
4
-
-
84955739630
-
Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors
-
D.B. Resnik, and S.A. Elmore Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: a possible role of editors Sci Eng Ethics 22 2016 169 188
-
(2016)
Sci Eng Ethics
, vol.22
, pp. 169-188
-
-
Resnik, D.B.1
Elmore, S.A.2
-
5
-
-
84887085805
-
The peer review congresses: Improving peer review and biomedical publication
-
R. Steinbrook The peer review congresses: improving peer review and biomedical publication JAMA 310 2013 1799 1800
-
(2013)
JAMA
, vol.310
, pp. 1799-1800
-
-
Steinbrook, R.1
-
6
-
-
33646104670
-
Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals
-
R. Smith Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals J R Soc Med 99 2006 178 182
-
(2006)
J R Soc Med
, vol.99
, pp. 178-182
-
-
Smith, R.1
-
7
-
-
84923445913
-
Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review process do you prefer?
-
E.C. Moylan, S. Harold, C. O'Neill, and M.K. Kowalczuk Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 15 2014 55
-
(2014)
BMC Pharmacol Toxicol
, vol.15
, pp. 55
-
-
Moylan, E.C.1
Harold, S.2
O'Neill, C.3
Kowalczuk, M.K.4
-
8
-
-
84907404190
-
Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials
-
J. Patel Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials BMC Med 12 2014 128
-
(2014)
BMC Med
, vol.12
, pp. 128
-
-
Patel, J.1
-
9
-
-
78449273893
-
Is open peer review the fairest system?
-
T. Groves Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes BMJ 341 2010 c6424
-
(2010)
Yes BMJ
, vol.341
, pp. c6424
-
-
Groves, T.1
-
10
-
-
0033514073
-
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial
-
S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial BMJ 318 1999 23-
-
(1999)
BMJ
, vol.318
, pp. 23
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Godlee, F.2
Evans, S.3
Black, N.4
Smith, R.5
-
11
-
-
78449286446
-
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial
-
S. van Rooyen, T. Delamothe, and S.J. Evans Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial BMJ 341 2010 c5729
-
(2010)
BMJ
, vol.341
, pp. c5729
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Delamothe, T.2
Evans, S.J.3
-
12
-
-
33747706116
-
Three blind mice-might make good reviewers
-
M. Albanese Three blind mice-might make good reviewers Med Educ 40 2006 828 830
-
(2006)
Med Educ
, vol.40
, pp. 828-830
-
-
Albanese, M.1
-
13
-
-
78449267048
-
Is open peer review the fairest system?
-
K. Khan Is open peer review the fairest system? No BMJ 341 2010 c6425
-
(2010)
No BMJ
, vol.341
, pp. c6425
-
-
Khan, K.1
-
14
-
-
33747670217
-
The case for open peer review
-
J. Morrison The case for open peer review Med Educ 40 2006 830 831
-
(2006)
Med Educ
, vol.40
, pp. 830-831
-
-
Morrison, J.1
-
15
-
-
30944437076
-
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors
-
S. Schroter, L. Tite, A. Hutchings, and N. Black Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors JAMA 295 2006 314 317
-
(2006)
JAMA
, vol.295
, pp. 314-317
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Tite, L.2
Hutchings, A.3
Black, N.4
-
16
-
-
0028901196
-
Blinded manuscript review: An idea whose time has come?
-
R.M. Pitkin Blinded manuscript review: an idea whose time has come? Obstet Gynecol 85 1995 781 782
-
(1995)
Obstet Gynecol
, vol.85
, pp. 781-782
-
-
Pitkin, R.M.1
-
17
-
-
0032527549
-
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial
-
F. Godlee, C.R. Gale, and C.N. Martyn Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 280 1998 237 240
-
(1998)
JAMA
, vol.280
, pp. 237-240
-
-
Godlee, F.1
Gale, C.R.2
Martyn, C.N.3
-
19
-
-
84928800890
-
Publishing: Double-blind peer review a double risk
-
T.E. DeCoursey Publishing: double-blind peer review a double risk Nature 520 2015 623
-
(2015)
Nature
, vol.520
, pp. 623
-
-
Decoursey, T.E.1
-
20
-
-
0032527550
-
Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? PEER investigators
-
M.K. Cho, A.C. Justice, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, J.F. Waeckerle, M.L. Callaham, and et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER investigators JAMA 280 1998 243 245
-
(1998)
JAMA
, vol.280
, pp. 243-245
-
-
Cho, M.K.1
Justice, A.C.2
Winker, M.A.3
Berlin, J.A.4
Waeckerle, J.F.5
Callaham, M.L.6
-
21
-
-
33747698399
-
To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefers
-
G. Regehr, and G. Bordage To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefers Med Educ 40 2006 832 839
-
(2006)
Med Educ
, vol.40
, pp. 832-839
-
-
Regehr, G.1
Bordage, G.2
-
22
-
-
0032527565
-
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators
-
A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, and D. Rennie Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators JAMA 280 1998 240 242
-
(1998)
JAMA
, vol.280
, pp. 240-242
-
-
Justice, A.C.1
Cho, M.K.2
Winker, M.A.3
Berlin, J.A.4
Rennie, D.5
-
23
-
-
0031970614
-
Masked peer review revisited
-
R.M. Pitkin Masked peer review revisited Obstet Gynecol 91 1998 780
-
(1998)
Obstet Gynecol
, vol.91
, pp. 780
-
-
Pitkin, R.M.1
-
24
-
-
84947936918
-
Is double-blinded peer review necessary? the effect of blinding on review quality
-
K.C. Chung, M.J. Shauver, S. Malay, L. Zhong, A. Weinstein, and R.J. Rohrich Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The effect of blinding on review quality Plast Reconstr Surg 136 2015 1369 1377
-
(2015)
Plast Reconstr Surg
, vol.136
, pp. 1369-1377
-
-
Chung, K.C.1
Shauver, M.J.2
Malay, S.3
Zhong, L.4
Weinstein, A.5
Rohrich, R.J.6
-
25
-
-
84875759903
-
Opening the black-box of peer review: An agent-based model of scientist behaviour
-
F. Squazzoni, and C. Gandelli Opening the black-box of peer review: an agent-based model of scientist behaviour J Artif Soc Soc Simul 16 2013 3
-
(2013)
J Artif Soc Soc Simul
, vol.16
, pp. 3
-
-
Squazzoni, F.1
Gandelli, C.2
-
27
-
-
0032527564
-
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
-
S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith, and N. Black Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial JAMA 280 1998 234 237
-
(1998)
JAMA
, vol.280
, pp. 234-237
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Godlee, F.2
Evans, S.3
Smith, R.4
Black, N.5
-
29
-
-
84956896349
-
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
-
M.K. Kowalczuk, F. Dudbridge, S. Nanda, S.L. Harriman, J. Patel, and E.C. Moylan 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 BMJ Open 5 2015 e008707
-
(2015)
BMJ Open
, vol.5
-
-
Kowalczuk, M.K.1
Dudbridge, F.2
Nanda, S.3
Harriman, S.L.4
Patel, J.5
Moylan, E.C.6
-
30
-
-
0037024254
-
Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit
-
F. Godlee Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit JAMA 287 2002 2762 2765
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, pp. 2762-2765
-
-
Godlee, F.1
-
31
-
-
84908140780
-
Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ
-
T. Groves, and E. Loder Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ BMJ 349 2014 g5394
-
(2014)
BMJ
, vol.349
, pp. g5394
-
-
Groves, T.1
Loder, E.2
-
33
-
-
33846287604
-
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey
-
L. Tite, and S. Schroter Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey J Epidemiol Community Health 61 2007 9 12
-
(2007)
J Epidemiol Community Health
, vol.61
, pp. 9-12
-
-
Tite, L.1
Schroter, S.2
-
34
-
-
0033051347
-
Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts
-
S. van Rooyen, N. Black, and F. Godlee Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts J Clin Epidemiol 52 1999 625 629
-
(1999)
J Clin Epidemiol
, vol.52
, pp. 625-629
-
-
Van Rooyen, S.1
Black, N.2
Godlee, F.3
-
35
-
-
33749315161
-
Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument
-
A.P. Landkroon, A.M. Euser, H. Veeken, W. Hart, and A.J. Overbeke Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument Obstet Gynecol 108 2006 979 985
-
(2006)
Obstet Gynecol
, vol.108
, pp. 979-985
-
-
Landkroon, A.P.1
Euser, A.M.2
Veeken, H.3
Hart, W.4
Overbeke, A.J.5
-
37
-
-
84957044165
-
-
[[accessed 23/03/2016]]
-
R. Van Noorden The scientists who get credit for peer review 2014 10.1038/nature.2014.16102 [Available: http://www.nature.com/news/the-scientists-who-get-credit-for-peer-review-1.16102 [accessed 23/03/2016]]
-
(2014)
The Scientists Who Get Credit for Peer Review
-
-
Van Noorden, R.1
-
39
-
-
84908881792
-
Review rewards
-
Review rewards Nature 514 2014 274
-
(2014)
Nature
, vol.514
, pp. 274
-
-
-
41
-
-
85025100990
-
-
Peer review evaluation (PRE). /[accessed 23/03/2016]
-
Peer review evaluation (PRE). Available: www.pre-val.org /[accessed 23/03/2016]
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
85025096568
-
-
Engineering Fracture Mechnisms accessed 23/03/2016
-
Engineering Fracture Mechnisms. Peer review Report 2015;133, Supplement 1:1-308. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00137944/133/supp/S1 [accessed 23/03/2016]
-
Peer Review Report 2015
, vol.133
, pp. 1-308
-
-
-
45
-
-
33745749911
-
Conflicts of interest: How money clouds objectivity
-
R. Smith Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity J R Soc Med 99 2006 292 297
-
(2006)
J R Soc Med
, vol.99
, pp. 292-297
-
-
Smith, R.1
-
46
-
-
84863593744
-
High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding: Case-control study
-
A.E. Handel, S.V. Patel, J. Pakpoor, G.C. Ebers, B. Goldacre, and S.V. Ramagopalan High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding: case-control study BMJ 344 2012 e4212
-
(2012)
BMJ
, vol.344
, pp. e4212
-
-
Handel, A.E.1
Patel, S.V.2
Pakpoor, J.3
Ebers, G.C.4
Goldacre, B.5
Ramagopalan, S.V.6
-
47
-
-
84864386129
-
Time to open up finances of medical journals
-
R. Smith Time to open up finances of medical journals BMJ 345 2012 e4968
-
(2012)
BMJ
, vol.345
, pp. e4968
-
-
Smith, R.1
-
48
-
-
84938540900
-
Margaret McCartney: Medical journals and their parasitical profit
-
M. McCartney Margaret McCartney: medical journals and their parasitical profit BMJ 350 2015 h2832
-
(2015)
BMJ
, vol.350
, pp. h2832
-
-
McCartney, M.1
-
49
-
-
33749630452
-
The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research
-
R. Smith The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research J R Soc Med 99 2006 452 456
-
(2006)
J R Soc Med
, vol.99
, pp. 452-456
-
-
Smith, R.1
-
50
-
-
22144485579
-
Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies
-
R. Smith Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies PLoS Med 2 2005 e138
-
(2005)
PLoS Med
, vol.2
, pp. e138
-
-
Smith, R.1
-
51
-
-
1642325520
-
Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial
-
S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, J. Carpenter, F. Godlee, and R. Smith Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial BMJ 328 2004 673
-
(2004)
BMJ
, vol.328
, pp. 673
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Black, N.2
Evans, S.3
Carpenter, J.4
Godlee, F.5
Smith, R.6
-
52
-
-
0037024214
-
Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review
-
T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review JAMA 287 2002 2784 2786
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, pp. 2784-2786
-
-
Jefferson, T.1
Alderson, P.2
Wager, E.3
Davidoff, F.4
-
53
-
-
0037024264
-
Measuring the quality of editorial peer review
-
T. Jefferson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff Measuring the quality of editorial peer review JAMA 287 2002 2786 2790
-
(2002)
JAMA
, vol.287
, pp. 2786-2790
-
-
Jefferson, T.1
Wager, E.2
Davidoff, F.3
-
55
-
-
53649085249
-
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
-
S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, F. Godlee, L. Osorio, and R. Smith What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 101 2008 507 514
-
(2008)
J R Soc Med
, vol.101
, pp. 507-514
-
-
Schroter, S.1
Black, N.2
Evans, S.3
Godlee, F.4
Osorio, L.5
Smith, R.6
-
56
-
-
84950154046
-
Peer-review fraud - Hacking the scientific publication process
-
C.J. Haug Peer-review fraud - hacking the scientific publication process N Engl J Med 373 2015 2393 2395
-
(2015)
N Engl J Med
, vol.373
, pp. 2393-2395
-
-
Haug, C.J.1
-
57
-
-
84918802079
-
Publishing: The peer-review scam
-
C. Ferguson, A. Marcus, and I. Oransky Publishing: the peer-review scam Nature 515 2014 480 482
-
(2014)
Nature
, vol.515
, pp. 480-482
-
-
Ferguson, C.1
Marcus, A.2
Oransky, I.3
-
58
-
-
84927912572
-
Why do we need international standards on responsible research publication for authors and editors?
-
E. Wager, and S. Kleinert Why do we need international standards on responsible research publication for authors and editors? J Glob Health 3 2013 020301
-
(2013)
J Glob Health
, vol.3
, pp. 020301
-
-
Wager, E.1
Kleinert, S.2
-
59
-
-
77952526993
-
Quality and peer review of research: An adjudicating role for editors
-
D.P. Newton Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors Account Res 17 2010 130 145
-
(2010)
Account Res
, vol.17
, pp. 130-145
-
-
Newton, D.P.1
-
60
-
-
78149390160
-
Conflicts of interest at medical journals: The influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - Cohort study
-
A. Lundh, M. Barbateskovic, A. Hróbjartsson, and P.C. Gøtzsche Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study PLoS Med 7 2010 e1000354
-
(2010)
PLoS Med
, vol.7
, pp. e1000354
-
-
Lundh, A.1
Barbateskovic, M.2
Hróbjartsson, A.3
Gøtzsche, P.C.4
-
61
-
-
84877034861
-
Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review
-
N. Gleicher Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review Reprod Biomed Online 26 2013 411 415
-
(2013)
Reprod Biomed Online
, vol.26
, pp. 411-415
-
-
Gleicher, N.1
-
62
-
-
84878190326
-
Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: The case of mammography screening
-
K. Rasmussen, K.J. Jørgensen, and P.C. Gøtzsche Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening Evid Based Med 18 2013 83 89
-
(2013)
Evid Based Med
, vol.18
, pp. 83-89
-
-
Rasmussen, K.1
Jørgensen, K.J.2
Gøtzsche, P.C.3
-
63
-
-
84907486748
-
Open payments goes live with pharma to doctor fee data: First analysis
-
D. Jarvies, R. Coombes, and W. Stahl-Timmins Open payments goes live with pharma to doctor fee data: first analysis BMJ 349 2014 g6003
-
(2014)
BMJ
, vol.349
, pp. g6003
-
-
Jarvies, D.1
Coombes, R.2
Stahl-Timmins, W.3
-
64
-
-
84883216043
-
Conflicts of interest and medical publishing
-
W.W. Hurd Conflicts of interest and medical publishing Obstet Gynecol 122 2013 511 512
-
(2013)
Obstet Gynecol
, vol.122
, pp. 511-512
-
-
Hurd, W.W.1
|