Literature DB >> 19223484

Is peer review censorship?

Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C Fang.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19223484      PMCID: PMC2663163          DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00018-09

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Immun        ISSN: 0019-9567            Impact factor:   3.441


× No keyword cloud information.
  22 in total

1.  The essential role of peer review.

Authors:  F Gannon
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  Science, censorship, and public health.

Authors:  Abigail Salyers
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-04-26       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  'Peer review' culture.

Authors:  M Atkinson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

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

5.  Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?

Authors:  P M Rothwell; C N Martyn
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 13.501

6.  Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.

Authors:  Mohammadreza Hojat; Joseph S Gonnella; Addeane S Caelleigh
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.853

7.  The history of the peer-review process.

Authors:  Ray Spier
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 19.536

8.  On rejection.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 3.441

9.  The evolution of editorial peer review.

Authors:  J C Burnham
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Chance and consensus in peer review.

Authors:  S Cole; J R Cole; G A Simon
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-11-20       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.