Literature DB >> 16574968

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

Richard Smith1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2006        PMID： 16574968      PMCID： PMC1420798          DOI： 10.1177/014107680609900414

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN： 0141-0768            Impact factor:   18.000


× No keyword cloud information.
  10 in total

Review 1.  Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson; Philip Alderson; Elizabeth Wager; Frank Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; James Carpenter; Fiona Godlee; Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-02

3.  The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.

Authors:  R A McNutt; A T Evans; R H Fletcher; S W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  F Godlee; C R Gale; C N Martyn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.

Authors:  S van Rooyen; F Godlee; S Evans; R Smith; N Black
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

Authors:  A C Justice; M K Cho; M A Winker; J A Berlin; D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.

Authors:  S van Rooyen; F Godlee; S Evans; N Black; R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-02

8.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.

Authors:  C Wenneras; A Wold
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-05-22       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews.

Authors:  R Horton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-01-04       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The critical attitude in medicine: the need for a new ethics.

Authors:  N McIntyre; K Popper
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983 Dec 24-31
  10 in total
  127 in total

1.  Social influence and peer review: Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve.

Authors:  Daniel Fisher; Nikolaos Parisis
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  Is peer review censorship?

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 3.441

3.  An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.

Authors:  Johan Bollen; David Crandall; Damion Junk; Ying Ding; Katy Börner
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2016-09-03       Impact factor: 3.238

4.  Holiday review. Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback.

Authors:  Daniel Rosenfield; Steven J Hoffman
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-12-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.

Authors:  Edward F Barroga
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 2.153

6.  Editorial: peer review and the editorial process--a look behind the curtain.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Susan A Elmore
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Paper-trail index: Can a metric that captures a paper's history of submission and rejection give insight into its value and encourage good authorship practices?

Authors:  Shai Berlin
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 8.807

9.  How to evaluate reviewers - the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS).

Authors:  Andreas F Mavrogenis; Jing Sun; Andrew Quaile; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Authors:  Aceil Al-Khatib; Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.525
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.