Literature DB >> 24692607

Peer review.

H Twaij1, S Oussedik, P Hoffmeyer.   

Abstract

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals. This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Keywords:  Fraud; Peer Review; Research

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 24692607     DOI： 10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN： 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  5 in total

1.  Expediting peer review: just say no.

Authors:  Stuart F Quan
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 4.062

Review 2.  Publishing in black and white: the relevance of listing of scientific journals.

Authors:  Durga Prasanna Misra; Vinod Ravindran; Anupam Wakhlu; Aman Sharma; Vikas Agarwal; Vir Singh Negi
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 2.631

3.  Why double-blind review is preferable for scholarly journals.

Authors:  Behrooz Lotfi; Omid Mahian
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.153

4.  Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research.

Authors:  Mark Yarborough; Robert Nadon; David G Karlin
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 5.  Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: How to Choose a Journal?

Authors:  Zahra Bahadoran; Parvin Mirmiran; Khosrow Kashfi; Asghar Ghasemi
Journal:  Int J Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2020-11-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.