Peer Review: How much weightage should the editor give to reviewer's opinion?
作者信息
Jawaid Shaukat Ali, Jawaid Masood
机构信息
Shaukat Ali Jawaid Chief Editor, Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, Karachi - Pakistan.
Masood Jawaid Associate Editor Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, Karachi - Pakistan.
出版信息
Pak J Med Sci. 2018 Sep-Oct;34(5):1051-1053. doi: 10.12669/pjms.345.16322.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Peer Review: How much weightage should the editor give to reviewer's opinion?同行评审：编辑应给予审稿人意见多大的权重？
Pak J Med Sci. 2018 Sep-Oct;34(5):1051-1053. doi: 10.12669/pjms.345.16322.
2
Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.审稿人的评分是否受到其自身工作引用的影响？对提交手稿和同行评审报告的分析。
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):401-406.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003. Epub 2015 Oct 27.
3
How to Write a Peer Reviewer's Opinion?如何撰写同行评审意见？
Korean J Med Educ. 2011 Sep;23(3):221-2. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2011.23.3.221. Epub 2011 Sep 30.
4
How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.如何避免被审稿人毙掉：一位编辑的观点。
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2004 Jan;51(1):127-30.
5
Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.谁能从同行评审中受益？对《整形与重建外科》100份评审请求结果的分析。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Oct;116(5):1461-72; discussion 1473-5. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000178796.82273.7c.
6
The peer-review process in medical publishing: a reviewer's perspective.医学出版中的同行评审过程：审稿人的视角
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003 Dec;126(6):1683-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.014.
7
ISPPD Reviewer's Training Workshop 'Effective Peer Review'.国际围产期心理病理学会审稿人培训工作坊“有效的同行评审”
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019 Apr-Jun;37(2):220-221.
8
Submissions, impact factor, reviewer's recommendations and geographical bias within the peer review system (1997-2002): focus on Germany.同行评审系统中的投稿、影响因子、审稿人建议及地域偏见（1997 - 2002年）：以德国为重点
Cardiovasc Res. 2002 Aug 1;55(2):215-9. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00500-x.
9
Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.同行评议：基于作者和评审经验的观点。
Br Dent J. 2012 Aug;213(4):153-4. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.721.
10
The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.审稿人建议与提交至产科领域发表的稿件编辑决策之间的关系。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;211(6):703.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.053. Epub 2014 Jun 28.
引用本文的文献
1
Improving the quality of Peer Review and accelerating the peer review process.提高同行评审质量并加快同行评审流程。
Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Jan-Feb;39(1):1-3. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.1.7236.
本文引用的文献
1
Reviewing a Manuscript: Disparity Amongst Peer Reviewers' Priorities from Basic Health Sciences and Clinicians.审阅稿件：基础健康科学领域同行评审人员与临床医生在评审重点上的差异
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016 Aug;26(8):677-80.
2
Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.公开评估：对科学进行完全透明的发表后同行评审和评级的愿景。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Oct 17;6:79. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079. eCollection 2012.
Zotero 插件