• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医学学术领域同行评审过程的全面审视:迈向公正决策——社论

Comprehensive examination of the peer review process in academic medicine: Towards reaching unbiased decisions - Editorial.

作者信息

Fanfan Dino, McKenney Mark, Elkbuli Adel

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Department of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

出版信息

Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Mar 15;64:102211. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102211. eCollection 2021 Apr.

DOI:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102211
PMID:33815786
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8010382/
Abstract

•The implementation of double- or triple-blind review practices will ensure that authors with worthwhile and prominent research will have fair and equitable review regardless of their prominence in the field.•Improving the quality of our reviews and raising the standings of our publishing authors. This makes way for healthy competition and a drive to produce high quality research.•It is our responsibility to limit or eliminate bias by promoting impartiality and increasing the level of transparency between the editorial teams and authors, allowing peer review to be more inclusive, instructional, and equitable.

摘要

•实施双盲或三盲评审机制将确保拥有有价值且杰出研究成果的作者能得到公平公正的评审,无论其在该领域的知名度如何。

•提高我们评审的质量,提升我们发表作品的作者的地位。这为良性竞争和高质量研究成果的产出创造了条件。

•我们有责任通过促进公正以及提高编辑团队与作者之间的透明度来限制或消除偏见,使同行评审更具包容性、指导性和公平性。

相似文献

1
Comprehensive examination of the peer review process in academic medicine: Towards reaching unbiased decisions - Editorial.医学学术领域同行评审过程的全面审视:迈向公正决策——社论
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Mar 15;64:102211. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102211. eCollection 2021 Apr.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.编辑委员会成员、副主编及其各自期刊在外科同行评审出版物方面的差异:旨在维护学术诚信。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020 Oct 27;60:140-145. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.10.042. eCollection 2020 Dec.
4
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.
5
Responsible research publication: international standards for editors.负责任的研究发表:编辑的国际标准
Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2014;35(3):35-41. doi: 10.1515/prilozi-2015-0006.
6
Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.关于:期刊标准——编辑回复。
N Z Vet J. 2003 Aug;51(4):199. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2003.36367.
7
Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest.编辑应声明利益冲突。
J Bioeth Inq. 2019 Jun;16(2):279-298. doi: 10.1007/s11673-019-09908-2. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
8
Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.开放获取期刊和订阅期刊同行评审过程的同行评审质量与透明度
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 29;11(1):e0147913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913. eCollection 2016.
9
Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal's Impact Factor.编辑和出版过程的完整性是提高学术期刊影响因子的基础。
World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Nov 21;28(43):6168-6202. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i43.6168.
10
Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.指导式同行评审:培养下一代作者。
Acad Med. 2017 Feb;92(2):201-204. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001224.

本文引用的文献

1
Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.编辑委员会成员、副主编及其各自期刊在外科同行评审出版物方面的差异:旨在维护学术诚信。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020 Oct 27;60:140-145. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.10.042. eCollection 2020 Dec.
2
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.开放同行评审调查:编辑、作者和评审人员的态度与经验
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 13;12(12):e0189311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311. eCollection 2017.
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
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.
5
Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.同行评审中的盲审:护理期刊审稿人的偏好
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Oct;64(2):131-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x. Epub 2008 Sep 1.
6
Review criteria for research manuscripts.
Acad Med. 2001 Sep;76(9):897-978.
7
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.