Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies - Test2 - elhamkhani - TriplyDB

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q24245573

about

Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry?Decoupling the scholarly journal Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals Classical peer review: an empty gun Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study Pedagogical Merit Review of Animal Use for Education in Canada Peer review and the publication process Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?Peer review in PLoS Medicine Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives Introduction to session on undue and disproportionate influences.A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science.Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for Research The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature.Through a glass darkly: The present and the future of editorial peer review.A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products.Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial Post-publication review: Will it hold its ground?Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals Supporting and enhancing peer review in the BJGP.Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard.Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal.

P2860

Q21144665-647C9995-5DE0-4A7D-BEF8-9910F8F43329 Q21686478-1DC04B1D-79FC-4A8C-99BB-C50A590A6AF4 Q24241477-334D9588-D2C3-4167-B689-E23C11A7F25E Q24288896-3062371A-C696-4895-82AB-3D7C07307E7E Q24652439-DD8D6274-F0E0-406F-B386-DE893814A2A3 Q26783905-A75ADAC2-060B-4BC6-848B-A62172D2CCF1 Q27336351-12934F25-F407-4FFF-B934-71CECB77B811 Q28076160-42AB82A6-649C-41B8-AF15-848E80B7CE43 Q28727376-39226D19-3BDA-4394-B92B-068F017622B8 Q28741517-D9DB8EC0-E280-4C35-9761-C086C5AD61D5 Q28742185-3C82A710-B2B3-49D1-B0AE-87FA1CA19626 Q28752655-27DD6518-A297-4087-9829-E4F7702F6457 Q28763694-D65B75C5-B9AD-424F-9A62-B9EFADB2D625 Q29580352-AC29AE2E-E65F-42B8-A38D-287B69A7C835 Q30249679-E60D24EF-54D2-452E-8D8D-E9E1D320AB58 Q30487757-4D2C7526-0383-4368-A344-88803300DB83 Q30488576-835C2526-E68D-446C-9AB3-33E93FB8F65D Q33269085-E63A1CD5-3474-4930-9206-3CB4F82C5197 Q33829090-4FEF23E7-9F9A-4FA6-B8A3-D4A9752E228C Q34124776-D9F0B0F5-5843-4E93-B8FB-BB0623DE77D2 Q34164639-6446AD4C-C792-46FB-B087-7E224C8D71D0 Q34282595-2C1F614C-FF3B-4704-9659-0206E6BB799A Q34423516-9F6B7FF2-89D4-4873-BAFA-A634CCA6E8EC Q34789807-A94856AF-5036-4F26-B0EC-4B385CE1AD94 Q35174305-6BF1A92C-3FB9-43C1-B3FD-654E63073CCF Q35303719-6BA4FD7C-AD9B-45A5-85A5-820B35BE5D48 Q35591706-4A037723-9048-40CD-ADD2-2F183AB57120 Q35678788-FB827A86-1924-473C-BAA7-708E1F710E9E Q35682383-3C3413AF-9EB9-426B-9DA6-DE883E510F6A Q35783334-99DD7FCA-8CFA-4818-A167-0C6F6D235F6D Q36495158-EA39EB74-935A-4F0A-8C51-F10AE0798EDE Q37591068-529AE04A-234F-4796-9B3A-F5AE8B864E8D Q37673217-03F66D2C-B0FA-49BD-B0F1-21ECD5E207F4 Q37959692-AF6C4FF0-A312-4CB9-825A-1DF6FB9F53D8 Q37985831-01FDC9D1-08EB-4670-BD0D-79400D914EBB Q38036603-D01DA94D-0895-4FE8-BBDF-987FB93AFC2F Q38225109-6545652E-D269-4E11-8520-A069824B21A5 Q38233570-9EE0A1DB-573F-42CD-8C26-EE4A8D25FC01 Q38237401-969B7953-A7A2-4EBE-BCBD-2B03445564B6 Q38263373-8F36FC76-A06F-4B0D-9667-782E3B039E94

P2860

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q24245573

description

2007 nî lūn-bûn

@nan

2007 թուականի Ապրիլին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած

@hyw

2007 թվականի ապրիլին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված

@hy

2007年の論文

@ja

2007年論文

@yue

2007年論文

@zh-hant

2007年論文

@zh-hk

2007年論文

@zh-mo

2007年論文

@zh-tw

2007年论文

@wuu

name

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@ast

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en-gb

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@nl

type

label

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@ast

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en-gb

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@nl

prefLabel

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@ast

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en-gb

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@nl

P1433

Q24245573-05FF10CE-4DE6-4646-AE41-213A42B42144

P1476

Q24245573-5ECFAF71-F40F-4104-A78E-6662BE1F5994

P2093

Q24245573-458836FD-20C7-4D47-8537-22796FBC821C

Q24245573-927FE9C3-FCC2-44D0-90C3-3A584DAA51E6

Q24245573-B6C9FCD3-2C52-47C8-9D24-12CD7193DAF7

Q24245573-B941C575-3C7A-43ED-A01B-4F75B5439FE8

P2860

Q24245573-0271770A-1309-442C-8176-C4E8F200D17C

Q24245573-06D03F84-D3C0-423A-B535-2BD14F6539CC

Q24245573-150F6C73-00A4-476E-89C4-569AD3BFEB4D

Q24245573-16D5FE5A-F2AA-40A2-8937-2E189A3A4981

Q24245573-1C08FE6B-DCF0-4B23-B8F9-4E6E60AFD421

Q24245573-1FF59DBD-8570-4E75-98E4-84CEB6FFDD20

Q24245573-2480EF43-D7B0-4899-A79B-11FCDF6BA9A9

Q24245573-26E22326-976C-4D44-82AF-516F4313197E

Q24245573-2C4791FB-1F95-47ED-B583-8F9D56FA4F53

Q24245573-3303BD84-308C-4847-9644-16F5CA8DA75E

P31

Q24245573-6FF75692-E072-4780-B0DE-5BBDDA7CAC0E

P3181

Q24245573-C4C72A70-2B05-4388-ADAA-D4CE0BBEA9A9

P356

Q24245573-F5713159-9F69-4338-99E1-10A4786FDB4D

P577

Q24245573-4A84C9B2-B117-4D6B-B9C8-B30D159EA653

P698

Q24245573-CAB622F0-1528-4B9B-802B-6C927597A4D4

P921

Q24245573-0C78793E-EAC8-42AB-8CB9-B2BFFAF795F2

P3181

P356

14651858.MR000016.PUB3

P1433

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

P1476

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

@en

P2093

Frank Davidoff

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

Melanie Rudin

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

Suzanne Brodney Folse

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

Tom Jefferson

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

P2860

Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals

Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review

Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports

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

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism

The refiguration of medical thought.

Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles.

P31

scholarly article

P3181

457118

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

P356

10.1002/14651858.MR000016.PUB3

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

P577

2007-04-18T00:00:00Z

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

P698

17443635

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

P921