Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
about
A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinantsClassical peer review: an empty gunPeer review and competition in the Art Exhibition GamePeer review and the publication processEvaluation of an information source illustrated by a case study: Effect of screening for breast cancerEditorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract.Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal--a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International.Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for ResearchSelecting the best clinical vignettes for academic meetings: should the scoring tool criteria be modified?'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woesReviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delayLitigation-generated science: why should we care?Assessment of abstracts submitted to the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.Peer Review Interrater Reliability of Scientific Abstracts: A Study of an Anesthesia Subspecialty SocietyLooking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science.Analysis of reporting quality for oral presentations of observational studies at 19th National Surgical Congress: Proposal for a national evaluation systemGive until it hurts.The examination of peer review and publication in neurology.Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.Conflict(s) of interest in peer review: its origins and possible solutions.Reliability of reviewer ratings in the manuscript peer review process: an opportunity for improvement.A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.Ranking games.Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.A Website System for Communicating Psychological Science.Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials.On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?Is peer review censorship?Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.Trainees in peer review: our experience.Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.Methods for evaluating information sources: An annotated catalogueBeyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologiesTowards reproducibility in recommender-systems researchPerspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)
P2860
Q24288722-56B08CC7-F533-407B-9042-C97EB2C0601EQ24288896-9237CF9D-708E-429E-BA9E-AF7F14245418Q26779622-B2EBCC92-7994-4B6C-A93C-E025AAB8EC23Q28076160-55951070-D016-47D5-BB33-CD9BEE5EC354Q28362775-D9907994-48D1-47F4-AF41-1724C977FC04Q28752655-B8F1BA62-D83C-4170-8FAD-3D1F6D356CE9Q33236914-F4F9C112-F496-4E7A-81A6-B9BE7BDF32BAQ34164639-4C38A86D-1516-48C4-9782-F34161356F91Q34712354-9DF78D21-B092-48C4-B913-F561DFCDA566Q35678788-2E2D95BF-41D7-4774-9E85-4C72D05CD2F3Q35723674-12928E63-96E8-4E55-8577-ADCB12E8801FQ35999726-FEB8642E-98A8-4224-B680-2667DC60AF2CQ36147657-699C62C7-7B07-412B-9CB7-8BFE7720DED6Q36381359-6C711BD5-F257-4233-B544-7457F2830B93Q36554820-E19B11E6-E3E2-4BF7-BAFD-BC6D8245DB3EQ36716523-BF4A41CB-18F4-4ECF-9770-476F40EBE246Q37335818-DDF6C574-0D1A-49A6-80AC-ED62A912DCB5Q37594374-29B2F881-F22D-435C-844E-062702261934Q37699606-77AAA591-101B-4074-BC1A-896BC3736065Q37770371-A5A68897-37F4-4C71-AAB0-D03E493016EBQ38051132-A4D0D20B-C0FA-49F4-80C5-D6A242058531Q38071982-9AF5F71E-C261-4CD6-992E-F22EC6F61CE1Q38117386-E337F8E7-459E-433B-A039-A5B304E6BB12Q38231872-76A00DA1-166D-4633-8FFC-DFCA52E63D20Q38237046-5F44B2EC-DAB1-4D8F-8BA3-8D8636939CCCQ38237401-CE0F3A59-BFA4-4A88-A723-39FC36C38818Q38669901-84A0FB70-54BB-4D6F-97D1-C1E76FF81846Q38740564-6DEF8283-805D-4EEB-B190-8D31AA456932Q39061153-965B4BC0-D0E7-4A20-8670-EDE3CA33DE2BQ42708376-8942B6DB-430C-482B-994A-8C291B516CADQ43153388-4FBE0E10-2070-4EAB-A3BC-7D2DE0C66B14Q43771235-56DA740D-04E0-41CC-A193-F30FBA347814Q44086074-C97362D4-3F8D-4DF2-8E1C-FC90479E749DQ44788771-00836BED-AA40-42DB-B07E-8B28578A3178Q45027659-351D6DD2-3938-4C6B-9E1B-6FE358B660D6Q47135434-DA48CAEC-F511-4EE8-9855-48890A0BDB33Q55992639-E68DC56E-2A0F-41AA-9423-53B83F3D5423Q55992639-e5db62bd-455a-1005-3195-5b1dc886e42eQ56214040-A1CC451D-4E93-44DB-95C8-B9322DFEA8CAQ56341833-F49CBC7B-633D-409F-852B-9412F99E8D28
P2860
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
description
2000 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2000 թուականի Սեպտեմբերին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2000 թվականի սեպտեմբերին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2000年の論文
@ja
2000年論文
@yue
2000年論文
@zh-hant
2000年論文
@zh-hk
2000年論文
@zh-mo
2000年論文
@zh-tw
2000年论文
@wuu
name
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@ast
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@en
type
label
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@ast
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@en
prefLabel
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@ast
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@en
P356
P1433
P1476
Reproducibility of peer review ...... d be expected by chance alone?
@en
P2093
Rothwell PM
P304
P356
10.1093/BRAIN/123.9.1964
P407
P478
123 ( Pt 9)
P577
2000-09-01T00:00:00Z