Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
about
sameAs
Emerging trends in peer review-a surveyA guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trialsPeer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort studyRole of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journalsThe validity of peer review in a general medicine journalWhat is open peer review? A systematic reviewImpact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysisPersonal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysisImpact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal--a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International.Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science.The European Heart Journal on the move: can scientific publishing be further improved?The editorial process: Peer review.A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.The Editor's Role as a Harriet Shaw Weaver.Rumors of the Demise of Peer Review are Premature.Social influence and peer review: Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve.Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials.Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows.A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.Standards in the face of uncertainty--peer review is flawed and under-researched, but the best we have.Peer Review at JGIM.Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials.Social behavioural epistemology and the scientific community.Publications and rejections.A web application for aggregating conflicting reviewers’ preferences
P2860
Q24273351-021A2523-0619-40C5-BD5A-277981AEC3B4Q26777625-41548662-D67A-45EF-B96A-F3DF2D6ABE6BQ26783905-545C1FF1-406F-4AC4-9A32-27ACF3DA6A9EQ28541821-3C5E6AFA-D140-4056-82EA-DA9443AD88EFQ28742185-02F9EE83-8A75-483C-8D75-50ADA2C6454FQ29649956-50E94FC1-8C15-4D06-935A-D464BDD83138Q30249679-F2389218-648F-40EF-898F-BC232EADE8B7Q30488576-446A1E46-4CF6-43B6-9D64-35B9B7745688Q30980817-D1342EC4-C627-4177-BEEF-A9B87A639BCCQ33829090-67634E11-3F3F-4B88-83C0-B0963322A107Q34712354-1E496DCE-D06D-426F-9708-0A03D08B955BQ35591706-F4349DAD-DCA6-41D5-9DE4-8471E86C8A22Q35682383-24AEDBC7-EA38-45B2-9102-3D24DD1A96D7Q37335818-EB416782-1D93-4FA4-977B-9D264CBDAD3BQ38058275-BFF07783-898B-4839-98C7-490928D0902BQ38137082-D39FFE05-7887-4D47-A05A-4E0C5DA4E772Q38231872-56115B46-977C-4478-8AC5-32531251BF65Q38382274-EF770E4E-D464-4C64-AB68-EE2DC55E624DQ38592979-A7B09933-6F66-4E29-AF5A-E5D5250CE519Q38630909-BE68EF88-051F-4F5A-9FF9-084B470121F6Q38740564-7CFC94A8-DE21-4893-861D-04ED450F1800Q38807122-B249B628-BC3C-4EFF-80ED-6F556D12C9B7Q42698469-2FC17D0C-33D5-402B-9F50-10F529E2A6F6Q42947345-1C2D2501-25FA-47F1-BAFD-5E5068685600Q46445427-72B97941-36D2-4F21-8D14-02C81EED9403Q47142072-3374A75F-C101-44A0-ADCA-CB7E27D7F98BQ47560836-3BCC115E-C599-4B2E-B7AD-5B01A6372F62Q47759884-917AA2C1-3275-4851-BAA6-26F9FB0B6A79Q48048285-B3164C99-DDEF-41BC-BF09-22E1406D4FA4Q58996619-7783BCE4-C71F-46E7-9594-7E2DE0DD338E
P2860
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
description
2010 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2010 թուականի Ապրիլին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2010 թվականի ապրիլին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2010年の論文
@ja
2010年論文
@yue
2010年論文
@zh-hant
2010年論文
@zh-hk
2010年論文
@zh-mo
2010年論文
@zh-tw
2010年论文
@wuu
name
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@ast
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@en
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@nl
type
label
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@ast
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@en
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@nl
prefLabel
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@ast
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@en
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@nl
P2093
P2860
P3181
P1433
P1476
Editorial peer reviewers' reco ...... reliable and do editors care?
@en
P2093
Cindy Byrne
Martha Gerrity
Mitchell D Feldman
Peter Franks
William M Tierney
P2860
P304
P3181
P356
10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0010072
P407
P577
2010-04-08T00:00:00Z