Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports
about
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journalsPeer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription JournalsEditorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studiesUsing science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific workEffect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trialPeer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort studyPeer review and the publication processFOSE: a framework for open science evaluationLetting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in scienceAlternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluationPeer review in PLoS MedicineFunding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panelWhat is open peer review? A systematic reviewManuscript peer review--a guide for health care professionals.Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysisA fresh approach to publishing and reviewing papers in health professions education.A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publicationChecklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN): evolution of a content management system for point-of-care clinical decision support.Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.Double-blind under review.A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewPeer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem.A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical scienceReviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in FranceThe ups and downs of peer review.Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript.Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation.What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective.Through a glass darkly: The present and the future of editorial peer review.To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.Judge the article, not the author.Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses.Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.Errors in medical literature: not a question of impact.Review article: reporting guidelines in the biomedical literature.The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review.The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process.Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews.
P2860
Q21686079-A749B50F-C22F-4396-9DE4-9B110C96628BQ22665458-DE5DEF12-9B04-4D5E-8515-70E1402E6337Q24245573-0271770A-1309-442C-8176-C4E8F200D17CQ24273358-B3668E22-C3E4-4BF2-8586-C747CC73D971Q24648998-F69131AA-0DF8-40C7-8540-4EFCD5245A55Q26783905-1940DFDC-820D-4D47-87F8-660E1B0973F5Q28076160-03247832-C9A7-494D-AD55-F842C8ED39ECQ28727888-2AED3A32-9916-4E57-96B8-7D3885722E26Q28730475-881E1FF6-4260-4EE0-B12D-A07DD3E078CFQ28741517-2EF9D73F-CC40-4431-9811-E39A9E9B6704Q28763694-6653529C-5ED5-4FD1-969D-6226149CEC40Q29580352-16E05090-DA7A-44C1-A601-FB131B45787EQ29649956-8DCFFBF1-99B0-4B79-A638-DD82BB1DCEC6Q30233612-4C3748AD-1F20-4424-8F4E-3B441423721FQ30249679-EEC95E3E-33E5-4D53-9869-C4D3E4F5A031Q30485879-705998DB-AC08-443B-BB19-08F095D1FFE1Q30500256-BEE947E3-4E5C-4604-8360-283957BA5D72Q30818505-D4556724-2BD2-42EA-BF61-DF55C700A087Q30830681-6B0B6FBD-437B-442D-8261-9951F2108DA6Q30867539-38C2919C-20AB-4BC9-B964-311F8D07815FQ33269085-A9BA3618-8FFF-4DB3-B374-01E81F98A7C4Q33810540-33217397-C847-4B72-982D-D9931A8710F4Q33852921-FC191C49-9CDA-466E-BD25-EAA8FE6FA100Q34030771-8D184757-3BE0-4668-94A9-B74ED22596DFQ34230558-9E42DF82-1533-4C5F-AD68-082E11AA1319Q34636617-9FD51EAF-428F-4E44-AFEB-09EA842E8F2FQ35175503-C7379087-FD82-42B2-B5D0-33859A73B1EFQ35905648-24D50FF3-C560-4FEB-B892-CB08AC3C39C3Q36274704-3464CBC7-28E0-4B2B-A30E-1D3E80A18821Q36495158-2469A606-F127-4B59-8677-234FEB79061DQ36574019-F6C1F776-2359-4E06-B574-14EF137D5CDBQ37780730-DF76AEC6-D07A-4520-B212-DE06AEE3FAD4Q37826225-C5B3C4CE-E15F-415E-95C7-777902D06B37Q37881979-06DF566D-A704-4EB8-A95A-009D2471AF09Q38051132-D9CA27D0-1AEC-47D2-9105-E4FB6C4F6596Q38062353-D184D44D-F799-426A-97BF-B9820A162F9DQ38113989-221CD681-8ED5-44EE-98BE-A5D478AEF919Q38206522-D19D3F6A-0E93-4567-A677-5595324B79ACQ38544406-3CEFEF8C-DC67-4E88-B22A-4642516A9618Q38544410-A5AFF4C1-A9AC-491A-A190-998117176A88
P2860
Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports
description
1998 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
1998 թուականի Յուլիսին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
1998 թվականի հուլիսին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
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
name
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@ast
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en-gb
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@nl
type
label
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@ast
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en-gb
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@nl
prefLabel
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@ast
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en-gb
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@nl
P3181
P356
P1476
Effect on the Quality of Peer ...... ing Them to Sign Their Reports
@en
P2093
Catharine R. Gale
Christopher N. Martyn
P3181
P356
10.1001/JAMA.280.3.237
P407
P50
P577
1998-07-15T00:00:00Z