about
Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic reviewAlternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluationWhat is open peer review? A systematic reviewPersonal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citationStatistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewLooking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputsWho cites non-English-language pharmaceutical articles?Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in FranceThe ups and downs of peer review.Differences among international pharyngitis guidelines: not just academic.What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?Update in critical care 2006.Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume).Gender trends in radiation oncology in the United States: a 30-year analysis.Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trialObjective, Structured Proforma to Score the Merit of Scientific Presentations.Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.The Justification for the Academy Track in mBio.Decreasing the ceiling effect in assessing meeting quality at an academic professional meeting.From the Editor: On Blinding and Vision.Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians.Making the case for double-blind peer review in otolaryngology.Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)An Examination of Gender Differences in the American Fisheries Society Peer-Review ProcessLanguage and socioeconomics predict geographic variation in peer review outcomes at an ecology journalAuthor-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journalThe changing forms and expectations of peer reviewUptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics
P2860
Q26995526-C138FCB5-3681-4AA2-8538-81C99F443DB3Q28741517-D1ABB2BE-0EEE-4448-AC20-A6A2D5B594ADQ29649956-56A8274D-7F20-4FCB-A3AD-B7E3279758A3Q30488576-C49AEA4B-433A-4D87-983E-7A3B903A3A4BQ30530753-13A3329F-E76E-4398-B303-74A2356F2BC0Q30830681-D64D9AB7-BACD-486B-8F9B-089579CE5969Q33269085-7722241D-B40B-4A1A-B6D8-F88146783F14Q33470306-82E6DA34-0A30-4CE9-ABD0-5AC31AF30B39Q33780496-E8C47B1F-C949-4A61-93CB-7197DD6014EDQ34230558-AE52FC5A-C060-44A6-BAA4-A4E6EBE78184Q34636617-C8A285C6-F0DF-4528-B686-076A6B87D0C5Q34692681-E9D2ED4C-F8A1-4EC6-BEAD-B7CAB3853476Q36013130-AD49FB37-217C-41D1-9070-626AD96F863EQ36769694-4982538E-6DCC-4B06-A6FF-2AF593B54396Q37145442-96E2562A-1E5E-40FC-8904-B0ED22C593C3Q37430711-6779615D-CCB7-4031-90B0-A2D4110A73A2Q37881979-5107E864-4B40-414C-9361-3854569632BEQ37959692-1FD9C106-E652-4A16-9FF3-1162FFAAACA4Q38734464-B22DA7BE-3B70-47A4-B580-7D0AC5BF891FQ39011265-2E7F847E-B25E-4F28-A066-AF7EA05A2EE9Q42671032-B3A5AC05-B4B2-47FB-97EC-3E35F6E17043Q43631592-24A14F31-D488-42ED-AE8F-ADA0F33090C4Q46193776-3C8BBD67-F8D0-4019-B68A-9380FB3F3298Q46275850-5028D3E9-9A51-479C-A67F-7C9A5A91D769Q48298744-10B16E42-11DB-4801-AC18-76AD6DBB46C6Q49052109-A0EDA28E-6E6E-442F-82F2-B8639924AF99Q56933782-B1E074F1-453A-4741-991A-A6CEAADEFEC2Q57063804-27CED901-E559-4CD3-80CF-5BDE29EF4D85Q58042088-3B4B5C12-A94D-4231-8FBA-448AFEF7163EQ58042235-50389518-5208-4B7A-9DCD-DBC43BEAEB50Q58713992-AF58BD1E-9AB7-427C-85AB-B8D0273EB8E4Q58771876-48DF0C6D-90F9-4FFD-AB10-241B9960802F
P2860
description
2006 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2006年の論文
@ja
2006年学术文章
@wuu
2006年学术文章
@zh-cn
2006年学术文章
@zh-hans
2006年学术文章
@zh-my
2006年学术文章
@zh-sg
2006年學術文章
@yue
2006年學術文章
@zh
2006年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@ast
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@en
type
label
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@ast
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@en
prefLabel
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@ast
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@en
P2093
P50
P356
P1476
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
@en
P2093
Augustus O Grant
Cary P Gross
Raymond J Gibbons
Stephen R Daniels
Timothy J Gardner
Vladimir C Hachinski
Yuling Hong
P304
P356
10.1001/JAMA.295.14.1675
P407
P577
2006-04-01T00:00:00Z