相似文献
1
Standards in the face of uncertainty--peer review is flawed and under-researched, but the best we have.
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012 Dec;109(51-52):900-2. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0900. Epub 2012 Dec 24.
2
Restoring integrity to the scientific literature: lowering the bar to raise our standards.
J Gen Physiol. 2014 Dec;144(6):495-7. doi: 10.1085/jgp.201411316.
3
Peer review and appeal: flawed but trusted?
Lancet. 2003 Aug 30;362(9385):747. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14218-3.
4
[Scientific reporting guidelines].
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009 Nov 19;129(22):2340. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.09.1099.
5
Publishing coronavirology: Peering into peer(less?) review.
FASEB J. 2020 Aug;34(8):9825-9827. doi: 10.1096/fj.202001592.
6
Reviewing scientific manuscripts: A comprehensive guide for peer reviewers.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jun;153(6):1609-1614. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.12.067. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
7
Publication ethics.
Public Health Nurs. 2009 May-Jun;26(3):205-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2009.00772.x.
8
Peering into peer review.
Nat Microbiol. 2019 Jul;4(7):1065. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0508-4.
9
Taking a peek into the editor's office.
Nat Cell Biol. 2018 Oct;20(10):1101. doi: 10.1038/s41556-018-0212-2.
10
Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
Nature. 2002 Oct 24;419(6909):772-6. doi: 10.1038/419772a.
引用本文的文献
1
Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Feb;25(1):293-321. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
2
Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal--a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International.
PLoS One. 2013 May 2;8(5):e61401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061401. Print 2013.
本文引用的文献
1
A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants.
PLoS One. 2010 Dec 14;5(12):e14331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014331.
2
Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study.
BMJ. 2010 Aug 10;341:c3926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3926.
3
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 8;5(4):e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
4
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.
5
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
6
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE. Epub 2004 Mar 2.
7
The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.
Cardiovasc Res. 2002 Dec;56(3):339-46. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00712-5.
8
A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy.
J R Soc Med. 2000 Apr;93(4):164-7. doi: 10.1177/014107680009300402.
9
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
10
Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):318-22. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70007-1.
Zotero 插件