Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.
about
How to make more published research trueA 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 studyChronic inflammatory disease and osteopathy: a systematic reviewImpact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysisProfessional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study.Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal dataValue and usability of unpublished data sources for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses.A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science.Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trialsThe most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial.Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature.Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation.'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woesOutcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting ConsistencySurveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals.Beyond the Impact Factor - What do alternative metrics have to offer?Current practice in methodology and reporting of the sample size calculation in randomised trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a systematic reviewA protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trialsEvaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication.Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials.Are CONSORT checklists submitted by authors adequately reflecting what information is actually reported in published papers?Simple decision-tree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before-after study.Update on the Manuscript Peer Review Process.Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions.Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.The aims and scope of WikiJournal of ScienceBigfoot sighted on Twitter
P2860
Q24288766-0E4BA6B7-119C-4EB3-816D-6778D6556234Q26777625-8412D230-CFFC-427F-969C-61C2E3DAF78CQ26783905-DA829BB6-4A7D-41EC-B2DE-8CF72DE55EA9Q28544438-554B387D-4F8B-4BCF-BA33-661321C756C3Q30249679-B7C0B36D-CFEB-40BC-8857-5FC897D9FEFFQ30488988-68D31D7E-EFA2-482A-B118-19713EA7C85AQ31043561-7787CCAE-D8C5-40A0-A96E-7A22BE2B4110Q31133808-CFEB74D9-6AF1-4AA6-AB84-685DAD4DDBF4Q34789807-EE8188EF-056A-44A4-8CB0-2091ACC055ECQ35303719-F35EAFF2-5A01-48C7-B366-8279B5DBA56BQ35682383-2AC963A5-D918-4D9C-A7BC-F6A102702267Q35775281-FAD5865E-3ED4-4AFA-9703-34FF7DFF23DEQ35783334-38C43883-BD57-468B-AAC8-95A1F6B6D1D9Q35905648-1E01637A-3E36-49CC-8D64-AE051CB74A39Q35999726-6F6C9070-B61B-4084-8241-FC07747FC539Q36157554-AF72C7D5-6455-4015-9BC0-AFCD62EB698DQ38844739-C319C029-C23D-4849-B19F-F084777BE834Q42344752-BCB07D6A-1A2D-46A7-8F7D-9B71F900599BQ42374147-86A1CE36-34CF-4935-B4BA-CF5D71F41554Q42376867-CAE72954-3A24-4F8E-8CA4-FAB8D48B3138Q42698230-1057844E-2153-4D27-A3FF-BB486C27963EQ42938056-333E293D-F418-4D4E-B246-C47974DFD08FQ47560836-B8D31BA8-8D67-4BF3-AE40-A15547E02F2AQ48148434-2F917AA3-E224-4A4F-A7AB-5D0540C75F93Q49932585-B297B486-B349-41FF-A38A-5A22F6D4BAEDQ49959095-3C23B491-896A-49FC-AFF0-6B6F7D8A46E8Q52659608-9B19BE07-454D-4AD8-966F-BF4263395C31Q53274543-816FFF84-EBBC-4CF7-92F5-1493BAE795E5Q55120284-b4f82ab2-4a04-b326-247f-3aa8ef7d7473Q58925535-A97DC184-BA8D-43CA-9A8F-942FAE6A8784
P2860
Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.
description
2014 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2014 թուականի Յուլիսին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2014 թվականի հուլիսին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2014年の論文
@ja
2014年論文
@yue
2014年論文
@zh-hant
2014年論文
@zh-hk
2014年論文
@zh-mo
2014年論文
@zh-tw
2014年论文
@wuu
name
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@ast
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@en
type
label
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@ast
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@en
prefLabel
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@ast
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@en
P2093
P2860
P50
P356
P1433
P1476
Impact of peer review on repor ...... ective before and after study.
@en
P2093
Milensu Shanyinde
Rose Wharton
Sally Hopewell
P2860
P356
10.1136/BMJ.G4145
P407
P577
2014-07-01T00:00:00Z