Problems with peer review and alternatives.
作者信息
Smith R
机构信息
British Medical Journal, London.
出版信息
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Mar 12;296(6624):774-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6624.774.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Problems with peer review and alternatives.同行评审的问题及替代方案。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Mar 12;296(6624):774-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6624.774.
2
Peer review: part of the writing process.同行评审：写作过程的一部分。
J Post Anesth Nurs. 1990 Feb;5(1):3-5.
3
A new template for referees and guidance on writing high quality papers.
Med Phys. 2016 Aug;43(8):4465. doi: 10.1118/1.4954788.
4
Peer review--the newcomers' perspective.同行评审——新人视角
PLoS Biol. 2005 Sep;3(9):e326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326. Epub 2005 Sep 13.
5
Peer review: purpose, process and publication.同行评审：目的、流程与发表
Clin Teach. 2012 Aug;9(4):201-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00612.x.
6
Using critical friends to build writing success.
Med Educ. 2016 Nov;50(11):1170-1171. doi: 10.1111/medu.13167.
7
Reviewing reviewers.
Br J Plast Surg. 2005 Jan;58(1):1. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2004.11.010.
8
Editorial peer review in US medical journals.美国医学期刊的编辑同行评审
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1344-7.
9
The manuscript review process of nursing journals.
Image (IN). 1982 Oct;14(3):72-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1982.tb01618.x.
10
How to get published and how to review.如何发表文章以及如何进行评审。
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jul;83(7):1029. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.029. Epub 2014 May 2.
引用本文的文献
1
Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications.识别和最小化运动医学出版物中利益冲突的激励因素。
Sports Med. 2024 Aug;54(8):1991-2000. doi: 10.1007/s40279-024-02037-w. Epub 2024 May 7.
2
Nanopublication-based semantic publishing and reviewing: a field study with formalization papers.基于纳米出版物的语义出版与评审：对形式化论文的实地研究
PeerJ Comput Sci. 2023 Feb 21;9:e1159. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1159. eCollection 2023.
3
Publication practice in Taxonomy: Global inequalities and potential bias against negative results.分类学中的出版实践：全球不平等和对负面结果的潜在偏见。
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 1;17(6):e0269246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269246. eCollection 2022.
4
Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes.委员会的同行评审是否选出了最适合获得资助的申请者？对两个欧洲分子生物学组织项目的选拔过程进行的调查。
PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003480. Epub 2008 Oct 22.
5
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.同行评审以提高资助申请质量。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):MR000003. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000003.pub2.
6
Experts and evidence.专家与证据。
Br J Gen Pract. 1996 May;46(406):268-70.
7
How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.科学摘要的同行评审有多可靠？回顾1991年普通内科医学协会年会。
J Gen Intern Med. 1993 May;8(5):255-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02600092.
8
Contribution to scientific research in paediatrics in The Netherlands: evaluation according to subspeciality over a 10-year period.
Eur J Pediatr. 1993 Nov;152(11):870-2. doi: 10.1007/BF01957518.
9
Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation.机遇、巧合与聚集性。对《临床研究杂志》1000份投稿的审稿人建议分析。
J Clin Invest. 1994 May;93(5):1877-80. doi: 10.1172/JCI117177.
10
Promoting research into peer review.推动同行评审研究。
BMJ. 1994 Jul 16;309(6948):143-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6948.143.
本文引用的文献
1
An alternative funding mechanism.
Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1377. doi: 10.1126/science.211.4489.1377.
2
Chance and consensus in peer review.同行评审中的机遇与共识。
Science. 1981 Nov 20;214(4523):881-6. doi: 10.1126/science.7302566.
3
Fraud in science.科学领域中的欺诈行为。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983 Jun 25;286(6383):2003-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6383.2003.
4
Chernobyl fallout in size-fractionated aerosol.
Nature. 1986;324(6092):22-3. doi: 10.1038/324022a0.
5
Fraud in medicine.医学领域的欺诈行为。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Feb 6;296(6619):376-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6619.376.
6
Why do research on research?为什么要对研究进行研究？
Lancet. 1986 Oct 4;2(8510):799-802. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90312-0.
Zotero 插件