Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
about
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studiesReviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewerHow to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panelImpact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysisPredatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewThe relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review qualityHow to run an effective journal club: a systematic review.How to evaluate a manuscript for publication?Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewersHow to review a paper.The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation.'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woesShould authors submit previous peer-review reports when submitting research papers? Views of general medical journal editors.Give until it hurts.Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review.Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials.What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Theoretical and technological building blocks for an innovation acceleratorPerspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)
P2860
Q24245573-7FAE4134-AD94-41A0-BBB7-885845477B25Q28703872-80087797-F902-4344-B96F-42058BF78D8FQ28732088-E66071C8-00E7-4C0E-8E40-52B53EB89D55Q29580352-563AF54A-9722-466E-A97A-36023133F748Q30249679-578C1C10-9471-4474-AAFE-B9EACE14AA28Q30487616-3C9A9A3E-AC03-4A00-A3CE-AB59360DDCD6Q33269085-DD694086-B88E-4D83-B0ED-65C279A16F03Q33281282-A439E52F-3F2E-48B8-8E6F-452A68ECF965Q33385503-6D92489A-9B8C-4DB2-B49A-F22F72AAF6EFQ33596244-CF1CD6F5-3E30-417D-B5AB-A0AEB2E1C975Q34030771-F0E85E27-0AAC-48EB-8732-305C46B0EE8AQ34071668-5F1F7CA1-B220-41F1-80DD-FD3006374346Q34198983-3FA7F4A9-A8C5-47D4-A7BA-1572032E554FQ34471308-BE96E9E0-A4FB-40D3-A47F-B63807D341C6Q34774886-A0493283-84E5-4FEF-9D1E-928DA1346A23Q35682383-549DF1FE-1FD6-4511-AF40-575FAF42E496Q35905648-3E4777AB-6217-4BFF-8B88-AA7C244643ABQ35999726-CF89D40D-5485-4300-BCE9-E4DB3E47255FQ36695686-0191F640-C798-45F6-A786-F1749FB9F037Q37699606-B321866B-6F92-47B1-9313-9FA042C0CB56Q38209568-ADAEC21D-E767-48AD-A79F-EB88D8C3ED89Q38258827-71558FD5-FDA4-40B0-8DE7-07F51380E657Q39384481-282DEA84-69FD-4AA7-BD94-16D85B2E9203Q47101389-0CD21DB3-C9E9-4B12-AC2D-F1A4FD853E7BQ47560836-8B84C241-6C9A-4EDA-A5C4-937C59640621Q55656859-AE7259C0-7E75-46E1-AE7C-275EAB2D7077Q56510183-0395713C-9B54-41F7-ACE6-8CC26AAD6E21Q56933782-F649E0CA-5977-471E-8BE3-DD165D56E668
P2860
Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
description
1998 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
1998年の論文
@ja
1998年学术文章
@wuu
1998年学术文章
@zh-cn
1998年学术文章
@zh-hans
1998年学术文章
@zh-my
1998年学术文章
@zh-sg
1998年學術文章
@yue
1998年學術文章
@zh
1998年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@en
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@nl
type
label
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@en
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@nl
prefLabel
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@en
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@nl
P2093
P1476
Who reviews the reviewers? Fea ...... ate peer reviewer performance.
@en
P2093
P304
P356
10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X
P407
P433
P577
1998-09-01T00:00:00Z