Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (Q24245573)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Europe PubMed Central

title

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (English)

0 references

0 references

1

Tom Jefferson

0 references

author name string

Melanie Rudin

series ordinal

2

0 references

Suzanne Brodney Folse

series ordinal

3

0 references

Frank Davidoff

series ordinal

4

0 references

publication date

18 April 2007

0 references

published in

0 references

cites work

The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: relevance for research in clinical neuropsychology

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The peer review and editorial process: a limited evaluation

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrument

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Interrater reliability of 1987-1991 Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport reviews

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Agreement among reviewers of review articles

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Prodding tardy reviewers: a randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The refiguration of medical thought

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

What are the benefits of editorials and non-systematic reviews?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

The communities of scientists and journal peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Journal reading habits of internists

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

175th anniversary lecture. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals?

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

Efecto de la revisión estadística en la calidad de los manuscritos publicados en MEDICINA CLÍNICA: estudio aleatorizado

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

1 reference

7 January 2021

Good science and good peer reviewing: are they related?

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

Calling Medical Care reviewers first. A randomized trial.

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000016.PUB3

7 January 2021

10.1002/14651858.MR000016.PUB3

Identifiers

DOI

1 reference

Consolidated OpenCitations Corpus – April 2017

1 reference

Consolidated OpenCitations Corpus – April 2017

PubMed publication ID

17443635

1 reference

Consolidated OpenCitations Corpus – April 2017