Opening up BMJ peer review.
作者信息
Smith R
出版信息
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):4-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Opening up BMJ peer review.
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):4-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
2
Twists in the tale of impossible means. The researchers rejoice that the gremlins were at the BMJ after all.
BMJ. 2000 May 13;320(7245):1343.
3
Disparities in the geographical distribution of authorship between invited and peer reviewed papers.
Scott Med J. 1999 Oct;44(5):149-51. doi: 10.1177/003693309904400508.
4
Peer review: the unsung heroes.
Bone Joint J. 2014 Apr;96-B(4):433-5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33703.
5
Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review.
BMJ. 2015 Apr 1;350:h1783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1783.
6
Importance of peer review for CDPH.
Commun Dis Public Health. 2003 Dec;6(4):277-8.
7
Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.
BMJ. 1996 Aug 3;313(7052):275-83. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275.
8
From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal.
Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Dec;48(6):750-6, 756.e1-21. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.017. Epub 2006 Sep 15.
9
Defamation bill gives defence of qualified privilege to peer reviewed journal articles.
BMJ. 2013 Apr 25;346:f2691. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2691.
10
Please publish me.
Postgrad Med J. 2003 Aug;79(934):427. doi: 10.1136/pmj.79.934.427.
引用本文的文献
1
How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.
Learn Publ. 2023 Jul;36(3):334-347. doi: 10.1002/leap.1544. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
2
Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.
Account Res. 2024 Jul;31(5):428-455. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625. Epub 2022 Nov 6.
3
Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.
Singapore Med J. 2022 Feb;63(2):55-60. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2021139. Epub 2021 Oct 4.
4
Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers.
J Bone Miner Res. 2021 Jul;36(7):1220-1224. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4319. Epub 2021 May 6.
5
Prestige bias--an old, untreated enemy of the peer-review process.
Hippokratia. 2020 Apr-Jun;24(2):94.
6
What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 18;20(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01005-y.
7
Visual abstracts: an innovative way to disseminate scientific Information.
J Bras Nefrol. 2020 Feb 21;42(3):357-360. doi: 10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2019-0213.
8
The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.
Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):339-373. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
9
The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals.
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 18;10(1):322. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2.
10
The changing forms and expectations of peer review.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 Sep 20;3:8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5. eCollection 2018.
本文引用的文献
1
Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):44-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.44.
2
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
3
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240.
4
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):234-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.234.
5
What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?
BMJ. 1998 Jan 10;316(7125):86. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.86.
6
Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.
Lancet. 1996 Nov 30;348(9040):1480-3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7.
7
The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):91. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020017003.
8
Anonymity of reviewers.
Cardiovasc Res. 1994 Aug;28(8):1134-9; discussion 1140-5. doi: 10.1093/cvr/28.8.1134.
9
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1371-6.
Zotero 插件