Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? - Wikidata - awgldk - TriplyDB

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q42120144

about

Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information System Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem.Dealing with publication bias in translational stroke research.On the editor's desk.Productivity of medical research in Switzerland.Papyrus to PowerPoint (P 2 P): metamorphosis of scientific communication Readability in the British Journal of Surgery.Unfinished business.Opening up BMJ peer review.Are we on a voyage to the unknown?Peer review: past, present, and future.

P2860

Q24273234-8920965F-B1C9-47AE-BA09-B919D1AB5489 Q24288869-5086132A-7F89-4D83-A86A-E26C80C94D5A Q30375399-16664DA6-6293-4BB7-B680-2917610DCE1F Q33810540-4DF56F3C-A687-4483-BAF0-679503BB9FBE Q33815012-FC7A5339-D6F5-4797-827C-4ED2D51262E8 Q34089155-C721EA6A-97F1-4B2C-9036-A1F3B5C9CD8A Q34161054-6B45D4A7-239D-44C7-A9CC-7ACEB92BD509 Q34426623-1457690A-96C8-4554-94AA-01F05B056B2B Q37030746-E326432C-1296-45E2-81E4-CBB1DBAB20EF Q42717804-1CA8615F-D369-43F0-A0ED-430A4E805817 Q42759977-8D4BD871-A60E-4CD9-9F47-44D06E7ABB4E Q43009660-C0979A5E-5FAB-4E0A-A9F9-0473011F3E3D Q51621304-1EC6C676-37DF-480E-9120-A4C9804C8BB0

P2860

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q42120144

description

1999 nî lūn-bûn

@nan

1999年の論文

@ja

1999年論文

@yue

1999年論文

@zh-hant

1999年論文

@zh-hk

1999年論文

@zh-mo

1999年論文

@zh-tw

1999年论文

@wuu

1999年论文

@zh

1999年论文

@zh-cn

name

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@en

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@nl

type

label

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@en

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@nl

prefLabel

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@en

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@nl

P1433

Q42120144-EB864FEE-663B-4487-AA1A-E69FEA7AFFC8

P1476

Q42120144-6BE80E55-60E9-4F8E-9180-F2D5050BB6F6

P2093

Q42120144-5F65E3D4-AEEB-463C-ADCD-81CEF8121712

P2860

Q42120144-1ECFC602-1364-40D4-A728-C3E27B7A37FA

Q42120144-2F4CFCB6-1740-4D98-B0C5-33EBECC1B220

Q42120144-3C0B0369-F0DC-4105-9C03-B1E5932C749D

Q42120144-47DC071D-7986-42B6-9810-7EB4E2C2288D

Q42120144-5BD388BF-C15D-4F9B-B9E3-686C50CD7F7F

Q42120144-657B787A-5A08-4D5E-B5F8-C47A6826508D

Q42120144-67CB9416-36DC-47A1-8AD3-3EDBFF90A591

Q42120144-681A4DF5-BD27-42DD-A924-3A1E6CE4C4A6

Q42120144-690A26D5-C6B9-446C-93E2-765F75887880

Q42120144-70A2F0CD-47BF-4395-B64B-127026932C85

P304

Q42120144-00EF61F0-9603-43BD-974A-1D5BFA36312B

P31

Q42120144-029038B7-1415-4A23-9397-72FC883AD590

P356

Q42120144-AFB7FBE3-287D-4EB4-83D8-6B59A2CBB6BA

P407

Q42120144-70B13F6D-DD0A-4464-BB55-6058F950AD89

P433

Q42120144-D104D7D4-5E5F-44C2-B1D7-103E3CE386F0

P478

Q42120144-E3D8B4D1-862C-47AA-AC28-F9FA8168EF58

P577

Q42120144-30DDF172-C06F-4011-B8F2-727C9A1F1AC8

P5875

Q42120144-6EDCFEDF-A614-49E0-96F7-9F72C0A7FB75

P698

Q42120144-65A1994A-C944-43CB-8BE8-79BB58FBA7D2

P921

Q42120144-25B7D2FA-5572-4A2F-855F-6622E8BA793D

P932

Q42120144-49243A44-11D3-4C09-A973-39955F405865

P356

BMJ.318.7175.44

P1433

P1476

Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

@en

P2093

S Goldbeck-Wood

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial

The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.

What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor.

Minimizing the three stages of publication bias.

Reviewing the reviews: the example of chronic fatigue syndrome.

The need for a research agenda.

Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.

What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?

Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.

P304

44-45

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P356

10.1136/BMJ.318.7175.44

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P407

P433

7175

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

318

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P577

1999-01-01T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P5875

13415338

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P698

9872890

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P921

quality control

P932

1114539

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string