Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?
作者信息
Goldbeck-Wood S
出版信息
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):44-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.44.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?同行评审——科学质量控制还是障眼法？相关证据
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):44-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.44.
2
Let's make peer review scientific.让我们使同行评审科学化。
Nature. 2016 Jul 7;535(7610):31-3. doi: 10.1038/535031a.
3
Background and perspectives of the peer review system.同行评审系统的背景与展望。
World Neurosurg. 2011 Jul-Aug;76(1-2):33-4; discussion 35. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.04.033.
4
Fumes from the spleen.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;10(3):264-7.
5
[How I review an original scientific paper].[我如何审阅一篇原创科学论文]
Rev Mal Respir. 2003 Nov;20(5 Pt 1):671-8.
6
Expert bias in peer review.同行评审中的专家偏见。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Dec;27(12):2229-33. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2011.624090. Epub 2011 Oct 12.
7
Research: A standard for policy-relevant science.研究：政策相关科学的一项标准。
Nature. 2013 Sep 12;501(7466):159-60. doi: 10.1038/501159a.
8
Fallout from hailed cloning paper.
Nature. 2013 May 30;497(7451):543-4. doi: 10.1038/497543a.
9
Peer review reviewed by a peer.同行评审由同行进行评审。
Obes Rev. 2010 Mar;11(3):169-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00671.x.
10
Improving the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery.提高外科随机对照试验的报告质量。
Int J Surg. 2007 Dec;5(6):376. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2007.11.002. Epub 2007 Nov 17.
引用本文的文献
1
Pharmaceutical Humanities and Narrative Pharmacy: An Emerging New Concept in Pharmacy.药学人文与叙事药学：药学领域中一个新兴的概念。
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2025 Jan 3;18(1):48. doi: 10.3390/ph18010048.
2
Research Products Beyond the Research Paper: Reflections on User-Centered Evidence Synthesis From SeroTracker.研究论文之外的研究成果：对血清追踪器以用户为中心的证据综合的思考。
Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 May 19;7:881250. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.881250. eCollection 2022.
3
Now is the time to assess the effects of open science practiceswith randomized control trials.现在是时候用随机对照试验来评估开放科学实践的效果了。
Am Psychol. 2022 Apr;77(3):467-475. doi: 10.1037/amp0000871. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
4
Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?按照《2015年诊断试验准确性研究报告规范》（STARD 2015）定义的诊断试验准确性研究的报告质量会影响其被引用情况吗？
Korean J Radiol. 2016 Sep-Oct;17(5):706-14. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706. Epub 2016 Aug 23.
5
The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information System.法医学数据库在公共卫生研究中的效用：使用国家死因裁判信息系统对同行评审出版物的系统评价
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Apr 12;14:28. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0096-1.
6
Peer review: past, present, and future.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Nov;33(10):1833-5. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3025. Epub 2012 Mar 8.
7
Dealing with publication bias in translational stroke research.应对转化性中风研究中的发表偏倚
J Exp Stroke Transl Med. 2009;2(1):16-21. doi: 10.6030/1939-067x-2.1.16.
8
Unfinished business.未竟之事。
Inj Prev. 2007 Jun;13(3):145-6. doi: 10.1136/ip.2007.016170.
9
Papyrus to PowerPoint (P 2 P): metamorphosis of scientific communication.从纸莎草文书到幻灯片（P2P）：科学传播的蜕变
BMJ. 2002 Dec 21;325(7378):1478-81. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1478.
10
Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem.医学研究中统计学的同行评审：另一个问题。
BMJ. 2002 May 25;324(7348):1271-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1271.
本文引用的文献
1
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.公开同行评审对评审质量及评审者建议的影响：一项随机试验
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
2
Reviewing the reviews: the example of chronic fatigue syndrome.
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):264-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.264.
3
Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example.在选择编辑时是否存在性别偏见？以流行病学杂志为例。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):260-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.260.
4
Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.医学专业会议的未发表研究：研究者未发表成果的原因
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):257-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.257.
5
Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.提交至科学会议的研究摘要结果中的阳性结果偏倚及其他局限性。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):254-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.254.
6
Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies.发表偏倚与被动吸烟研究：已发表与未发表研究的比较
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):250-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.250.
7
Adherence to published standards of reporting: a comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German.对已发表报告标准的遵循情况：英文或德文发表的安慰剂对照试验比较
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):247-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.247.
8
US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.美国和非美国的投稿：审稿人偏见分析。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):246-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.246.
9
Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.同行评审中隐匿作者身份：哪些因素会影响隐匿成功？同行评审探究调查员。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):243-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.243.
10
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.屏蔽作者身份能否提高同行评审质量？一项随机对照试验。同行评审研究调查员。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240.
Zotero 插件