Peer review: past, present, and future.
作者信息
Castillo M
出版信息
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Nov;33(10):1833-5. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3025. Epub 2012 Mar 8.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Peer review: past, present, and future.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Nov;33(10):1833-5. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3025. Epub 2012 Mar 8.
2
New AJR Initiatives in 2017.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Feb;208(2):231-232. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17712.
3
Editorial.
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2010 Mar;33(1):1. doi: 10.1007/s13246-010-0006-8.
4
All the right moves.
Nat Methods. 2019 May;16(5):353. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0424-9.
5
[Not Available].[无可用内容]。
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2016 Oct;220(5):189-190. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-112985. Epub 2016 Oct 20.
6
A Review of 2016 and a Look Forward to 2017 and Beyond: Editor's Page.2016年回顾与2017年及未来展望：编辑专栏
Radiographics. 2017 Jan-Feb;37(1):1-4. doi: 10.1148/rg.2017164012.
7
Passages 2020.2020年的段落
J Comp Neurol. 2020 Jan 1;528(1):3-6. doi: 10.1002/cne.24812.
8
[RöFo: prospects and challenges for the future].
Rofo. 2012 Oct;184(10):877-82. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325401. Epub 2012 Sep 21.
9
The International Journal of Dermatology, moving forward.《国际皮肤性病学杂志》，不断前行。
Int J Dermatol. 2013 Dec;52(12):1463. doi: 10.1111/ijd.12558.
10
Pediatric Research--the evolution continues.
Pediatr Res. 2009 Jul;66(1):1. doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181aebf2b.
引用本文的文献
1
Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.向审稿人支付报酬并规范论文数量可能有助于修复同行评审过程。
F1000Res. 2024 Aug 27;13:439. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.148985.1. eCollection 2024.
2
Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.同行评审：概念、变体与争议
Singapore Med J. 2022 Feb;63(2):55-60. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2021139. Epub 2021 Oct 4.
3
Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.双盲同行评审在一份影像亚专业期刊中的效果。
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Feb;38(2):230-235. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5017. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
4
The impact factor.影响因子。
Neuroradiology. 2013 Jul;55(7):803-6. doi: 10.1007/s00234-013-1227-9. Epub 2013 Jul 16.
本文引用的文献
1
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?同行评审人员能发现哪些错误，培训是否能提高他们发现错误的能力？
J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.
2
To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.设盲还是不设盲？作者和审稿人的偏好。
Med Educ. 2006 Sep;40(9):832-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02539.x.
3
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.作者推荐的同行评审员与编辑推荐的同行评审员之间在评审质量和出版建议方面存在差异。
JAMA. 2006 Jan 18;295(3):314-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.3.314.
4
The history of the peer-review process.同行评审过程的历史。
Trends Biotechnol. 2002 Aug;20(8):357-8. doi: 10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6.
5
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.第四届生物医学出版同行评审国际大会
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2759-60. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2759.
6
Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?同行评审——科学质量控制还是障眼法？相关证据
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):44-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.44.
7
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.
8
Opening up BMJ peer review.开放《英国医学杂志》的同行评审。
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):4-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
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.
Zotero 插件