Literature DB >> 29434045

Radiation oncology authors and reviewers prefer double-blind peer review.

Katherine Egan Bennett1, Reshma Jagsi2, Anthony Zietman3.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2018        PMID： 29434045      PMCID： PMC5834726          DOI： 10.1073/pnas.1721225115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN： 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


× No keyword cloud information.
  3 in total

1.  Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Katherine Egan Bennett; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle DeCastro; Calley Grace; Emma Holliday; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  The future of radiation oncology in the United States from 2010 to 2020: will supply keep pace with demand?

Authors:  Benjamin D Smith; Bruce G Haffty; Lynn D Wilson; Grace L Smith; Akshar N Patel; Thomas A Buchholz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-10-18       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.

Authors:  Andrew Tomkins; Min Zhang; William D Heavlin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205
  3 in total
  1 in total

1.  Reply to Bennett et al.: IJROBP study is consistent with our findings and offers insights on author preferences.

Authors:  Andrew Tomkins; William D Heavlin; Min Zhang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 11.205
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.