Prestige bias--an old, untreated enemy of the peer-review process.
作者信息
Bazoukis G
机构信息
Second Department of Cardiology, "Evangelismos" General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
出版信息
Hippokratia. 2020 Apr-Jun;24(2):94.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Prestige bias--an old, untreated enemy of the peer-review process.声望偏见——同行评审过程中一个古老且未得到解决的问题。
Hippokratia. 2020 Apr-Jun;24(2):94.
2
Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.作者和审稿人的个人特质、社会偏见与同行评审结果：一项案例研究
F1000Res. 2015 Jan 22;4:21. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6012.2. eCollection 2015.
3
Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.机构声望对审稿人建议和编辑决策的影响。
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):137-8.
4
A proposal for an 'equal peer-review' statement.关于“平等同行评审”声明的提案。
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2015 Aug;36(8):494-5. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2015.06.001. Epub 2015 Jun 22.
5
A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias.两步式投稿流程可减少发表偏倚。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):946-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023. Epub 2013 Jul 8.
6
Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.对发表偏倚干预措施的使用和监管不足会降低其有效性：一项系统综述。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;68(7):792-802. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.008. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
7
Medical journal peer review: process and bias.医学期刊同行评审：过程与偏见
Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):E1-E14.
8
Targeted Victimization: Exploring Linear and Curvilinear Associations Between Social Network Prestige and Victimization.针对性受害：探索社交网络声望与受害之间的线性和曲线关联
J Youth Adolesc. 2016 Sep;45(9):1772-85. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0450-1. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
9
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.盲审同行评议对摘要录用的影响。
JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1675-80. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675.
10
Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.双盲同行评审是否必要？盲法对评审质量的影响。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Dec;136(6):1369-1377. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820.
引用本文的文献
1
The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.同行评议过程：过去、现在和未来。
Br J Biomed Sci. 2024 Jun 17;81:12054. doi: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054. eCollection 2024.
本文引用的文献
1
Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.同行评议偏见：批判性评论。
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Apr;94(4):670-676. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
2
Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education.伦理的灰色地带：健康职业教育中科学不端行为和可疑研究实践的国际频率。
Acad Med. 2019 Jan;94(1):76-84. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002412.
3
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.单盲与双盲同行评议中的评审偏倚。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov 28;114(48):12708-12713. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
4
Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?单盲同行评审会阻碍新手吗？
Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):567-585. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7. Epub 2017 Mar 3.
5
Bias Among Peer Reviewers.同行评审者中的偏见。
JAMA. 2017 Aug 22;318(8):755-756. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.9201.
6
Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.作者声望背景下的单盲同行评审与双盲同行评审
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1315-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11014.
7
Peer review--a study of reliability.同行评审——可靠性研究
Change. 1982 Sep;14(6):44-8. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1982.10569910.
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
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.盲法对同行评审质量的影响。一项随机试验。
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1371-6.
Zotero 插件