Opening Up the black box of peer review

Physical Therapy

Volumn 98, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 202-208

  Jette, A M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PHYSICAL THERAPY SPECIALTY; PUBLISHING;

EID: 85045469603     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: 15386724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzx126     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Smith R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 99;178-182.
2. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ. 1999;318:4-5.
3. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ. 1999;318:44-45.
4. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1-14.
5. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287: 2784-2786.
6. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;63:1-2.