about
Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracyEditorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studiesUsing science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific workCurrent Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine: a new journal for a new age (http://cvm.controlled-trials.com)Head & Face Medicine - a new journal for 'intra-interdisciplinary' science. Why? When? Where?How open science helps researchers succeed.Recent Innovations at Nicotine & Tobacco ResearchITK: enabling reproducible research and open scienceOpen evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for scienceDesigning next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social webAlternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluationImpact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysisA retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publicationThe randomised controlled trial design: unrecognized opportunities for health sciences librarianship.A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer reviewEffects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woesWhat makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective.Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials.Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: a weighting approach.Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.The ethics of peer review in bioethicsImproving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals.Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.The credibility crisis in research: Can economics tools help?A new editor-in-chief for Nicotine & Tobacco Research.Jornal de Pneumologia 1995-1998.Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike.Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review.The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias.
P2860
Q22067773-14AF6953-B45C-4A17-9915-9337A79F18F6Q24245573-7D4CB0B4-60EB-4510-B4B1-E040231E6692Q24273358-A53EED2B-E015-4360-B7C6-9F2397A2BEB5Q24792288-F262FB0C-BAF3-4B93-B7D2-D27F30AB55F3Q24815948-C6DB78BD-1E2B-401F-91FD-AC493A427AB8Q27313486-9EE4D2BC-7B03-4726-92FB-93743A32C8E6Q28611388-6D48601D-327F-45F5-A249-B6CFB29BDE75Q28658840-9DDCC85B-537C-4C9B-BEC6-A3B13F372B02Q28717188-B07B0EEB-FE37-4123-B7BC-9058236FB5D4Q28727376-5625F533-BF97-4BF8-80A3-DBBCA92FF064Q28741517-C2912FC5-6580-4BF4-9AFB-1CD282A6FE3CQ30249679-FD87FC31-9EB9-4A00-8151-6811CA1DE842Q30483495-5D1F556E-4013-4882-BB27-74515A0AEFD9Q30500256-4957D2AB-2C6D-463E-9AB7-E7E16E07BA25Q30934887-8DA24A6E-266D-4431-A08C-F2ED8F1D4344Q33269085-42E9FEBC-E131-4F90-9DA4-B73A69598A7DQ35680672-EEA801CD-BAE9-446C-8194-C5425701CAD6Q35794330-B22B5190-433C-4D81-8369-1C46C7CF6738Q35999726-6324C04F-7A0E-4B6A-BF22-7F51BE75CEF3Q36274704-7D7520DA-DC2E-400C-A825-690302B94F0DQ36800618-1AA0C8AB-3279-4B4C-AA6A-07AA60B9ADD0Q36875584-9923BEF3-B869-46B9-8F08-4605C38BEB34Q37809927-E9CD6888-54C5-4190-ABA2-EE10B33A5CECQ38153174-994BFC41-153D-44D9-81FE-6F433492845CQ38163668-010630D5-EC7C-4ED7-89E9-99A7F1F76E6DQ39011265-B1F08219-493D-4010-8123-01AB859C0D94Q39264517-A3D11E8F-0710-478B-90DC-3BAC786F63B0Q42879270-44E667C1-CF02-4BCC-A7CF-7DC5C92D10B6Q43025621-85087A98-70CD-439E-8E03-9E9CA8980BCEQ44054330-8595BB28-BCA9-4500-86A9-63424E7CCBCAQ47101389-E19BC4BE-808F-4824-B91D-6F40875B02D9Q47312291-46BAA890-50C4-4AD9-8502-9B8B3D0DCED1
P2860
description
2000 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2000 թուականի Յունուարին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2000 թվականի հունվարին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2000年の論文
@ja
2000年論文
@yue
2000年論文
@zh-hant
2000年論文
@zh-hk
2000年論文
@zh-mo
2000年論文
@zh-tw
2000年论文
@wuu
name
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@ast
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@en
type
label
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@ast
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@en
prefLabel
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@ast
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@en
P2093
P356
P1476
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
@en
P2093
P356
10.1192/BJP.176.1.47
P407
P577
2000-01-01T00:00:00Z