Literature DB >> 35551436

The editor endeavours, aims and standards in a surgery journal: our experience with "International Orthopaedics" and the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie publications.

Andreas F Mavrogenis1, Marius M Scarlat2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2022        PMID： 35551436     DOI： 10.1007/s00264-022-05424-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN： 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.479


× No keyword cloud information.
  40 in total

Review 1.  Reviewing for clinical orthopaedics and related research.

Authors:  Richard A Brand
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Leanne Tite; Andrew Hutchings; Nick Black
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science.

Authors:  Vincent Larivière; Chaoqun Ni; Yves Gingras; Blaise Cronin; Cassidy R Sugimoto
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.

Authors:  A M Link
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  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

6.  Equal access to orthopaedic research funding, databases and scientific publications.

Authors:  Marius M Scarlat; Cyril Mauffrey; Andreas Mavrogenis
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  The good, the bad and the rude peer-review.

Authors:  Andreas F Mavrogenis; Andrew Quaile; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

Authors:  Richard Smith
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 18.000

9.  Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager; Emma C Parkin; Pritpal S Tamber
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.

Authors:  Maria K Kowalczuk; Frank Dudbridge; Shreeya Nanda; Stephanie L Harriman; Jigisha Patel; Elizabeth C Moylan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.692
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.