Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.
作者信息
Peh Wilfred Cg
机构信息
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore.
出版信息
Singapore Med J. 2022 Feb;63(2):55-60. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2021139. Epub 2021 Oct 4.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.
Singapore Med J. 2022 Feb;63(2):55-60. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2021139. Epub 2021 Oct 4.
2
[Current controversies in peer review].
Harefuah. 1992 Sep;123(5-6):217-20.
3
Through the Looking Glass: Insights Into Visualization Pedagogy Through Sentiment Analysis of Peer Review Text.
IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2021 Nov-Dec;41(6):59-70. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2021.3115387. Epub 2021 Dec 10.
4
[Controversies in the editorial process and in scientific publications].
Rev Med Chil. 2006 Jul;134(7):927-9. doi: 10.4067/s0034-98872006000700018. Epub 2006 Aug 29.
5
Peer review impact concepts.
J Maine Med Assoc. 1972 Nov;63(11):249-55.
6
Manuscript peer review: general concepts and the AJR process.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Feb;160(2):409-11. doi: 10.2214/ajr.160.2.8424363.
7
Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology.
Adv Physiol Educ. 2002 Dec;26(1-4):174-84. doi: 10.1152/advan.00041.2001.
8
Controversies in neuroscience.
Brain Res Bull. 2002 Sep 30;58(6):545. doi: 10.1016/s0361-9230(02)00803-1.
9
Training controversies.
J Hum Nutr. 1978 Jun;32(3):163-4.
10
The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports.
Res Synth Methods. 2018 Dec;9(4):521-526. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1330. Epub 2018 Nov 23.
引用本文的文献
1
How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.
Int J Epidemiol. 2024 Oct 13;53(6). doi: 10.1093/ije/dyae154.
2
Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice.
PRiMER. 2024 Aug 5;8:42. doi: 10.22454/PRiMER.2024.148162. eCollection 2024.
3
Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Dec 1;6(12):e2347607. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.47607.
4
Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.
J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Dec 4;38(47):e405. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405.
本文引用的文献
1
AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement on medical publications, preprints, and peer review.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 May;37(5):861-866. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1900365. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
2
Perspectives on double-blind peer review from collectivist cultural contexts.
Med J Aust. 2019 May;210(8):347-348.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50131. Epub 2019 Apr 4.
3
Guidelines for open peer review implementation.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Feb 27;4:4. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9. eCollection 2019.
4
Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Reviewers.
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018 Nov;69(4):346-348. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2017.12.006.
5
Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 Aug 17;3:5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. eCollection 2018.
6
A shift in scholarly publishing practices and the growing menace of predatory journals.
Med J Aust. 2018 Aug 20;209(4):149-150. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00892.
7
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.
F1000Res. 2017 Jul 20;6:1151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. eCollection 2017.
8
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov 28;114(48):12708-12713. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
9
The BMJ's own patient journey.
BMJ. 2014 Jun 10;348:g3726. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3726.
10
Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care.
BMJ. 2014 Mar 26;348:g2225. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2225.
Zotero 插件