《公共科学图书馆·医学》中的同行评审
Peer review in PLoS Medicine.
出版信息
PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e58. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040058.
Abstract
The PLoS Medicine editors discuss a paper about the difficulties of identifying what makes a good peer reviewer, and the process of peer review in PLoS Medicine.
摘要
《公共科学图书馆·医学》的编辑们讨论了一篇关于确定优秀同行评审员的困难以及《公共科学图书馆·医学》同行评审过程的论文。
相似文献
1
Peer review in PLoS Medicine.《公共科学图书馆·医学》中的同行评审
PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e58. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040058.
2
How does peer review work?同行评议是如何运作的？
Radiol Technol. 2008 Jul-Aug;79(6):553-4.
3
Open access under scrutiny.接受审查的开放获取
J Radiol Prot. 2013 Dec;33(4):885-6. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/33/4/M01. Epub 2013 Nov 27.
4
The editorial process for medical journals: I. Introduction of a series and discussion of the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers.医学期刊的编辑流程：I. 系列文章引言及编辑、作者和审稿人职责探讨
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;136(1):109-13. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(02)02272-9.
5
Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts.里程碑、地雷还是垃圾填埋场？同行评审在评估稿件中的作用。
J Pediatr. 2007 Aug;151(2):107-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.049.
6
Biomedical Journals in India: some critical concerns.印度的生物医学期刊：一些关键问题
Indian J Med Res. 2010 Aug;132:119-22.
7
Where is the honor in honorary authorship?荣誉作者身份的荣誉何在？
Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):324-7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110422. Epub 2011 Mar 8.
8
Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals.履行医学出版中的道德义务：同行评审期刊编辑、作者及读者的责任
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 May;123(5):684-6. doi: 10.1001/archopht.123.5.684.
9
[Scientific reports: responsibility for quality].[科学报告：质量责任]
Pflege. 2013 Dec;26(6):383-5. doi: 10.1024/1012-5302/a000326.
10
A Vibrant Community of Readers, Authors and Reviewers: A Medical Editors' Necessity and a Challenge for Medical Education.一个由读者、作者和审稿人组成的活跃社区：医学编辑的必要条件及医学教育面临的挑战。
Acta Med Port. 2019 Mar 29;32(3):171-172. doi: 10.20344/amp.12020.
引用本文的文献
1
Opening peer-review: the democracy of science.开放同行评审：科学的民主。
J Negat Results Biomed. 2014 Jan 24;13:2. doi: 10.1186/1477-5751-13-2.
2
Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals.改进矫形外科期刊的同行评审过程。
Bone Joint Res. 2013 Nov 18;2(11):245-7. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.211.2000224. Print 2013.
3
A new era in sports science: the launch of BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.体育科学的新时代：《BMC体育科学、医学与康复》创刊
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2013 Mar 28;5:1. doi: 10.1186/2052-1847-5-1.
4
Only connect: the merger of BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology.仅需连接：BMC 药理学与 BMC 临床药理学的合并。
BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012 Aug 13;13:1. doi: 10.1186/2050-6511-13-1.
5
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.告知审稿人他们签署的审稿意见可能会被发布到网上对同行评审的影响：随机对照试验。
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c5729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729.
本文引用的文献
1
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.用于提高生物医学研究报告质量的编辑同行评审。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
2
The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.期刊同行评审员之前的培训和经验与后续评审质量的关系。
PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e40. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040.
3
Responding to fraud.应对欺诈行为。
Science. 2006 Dec 1;314(5804):1353. doi: 10.1126/science.1137840.
4
Ten simple rules for reviewers.审稿人的十条简单规则。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2006 Sep 29;2(9):e110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110.
5
Editorial retraction.编辑撤回。
Science. 2006 Jan 20;311(5759):335. doi: 10.1126/science.1124926. Epub 2006 Jan 12.
6
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.培训对同行评审质量的影响：随机对照试验
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE. Epub 2004 Mar 2.
7
Reflections on scientific fraud.关于科学欺诈的思考。
Nature. 2002 Oct 3;419(6906):417. doi: 10.1038/419417a.
8
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.公开同行评审对评审质量及评审者建议的影响：一项随机试验
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
9
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.对同行评审质量的影响：对评审人员进行盲法处理并要求他们在报告上签名的随机对照试验。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):237-40. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237.
10
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?对于一本普通医学期刊而言，怎样才算是一名优秀的审稿人以及一篇优秀的综述呢？
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):231-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.231.
Zotero 插件