The ups and downs of peer review (Q34636617)

3 August 2017

The ups and downs of peer review (English)

1 reference

3 August 2017

1 reference

Yawar Qadri

11

0 references

author name string

Dale J Benos

1

1 reference

3 August 2017

Edlira Bashari

2

1 reference

3 August 2017

Jose M Chaves

3

1 reference

3 August 2017

Amit Gaggar

4

1 reference

3 August 2017

Niren Kapoor

5

1 reference

3 August 2017

Martin LaFrance

6

1 reference

3 August 2017

Robert Mans

7

1 reference

3 August 2017

David Mayhew

8

1 reference

3 August 2017

Sara McGowan

9

1 reference

3 August 2017

Abigail Polter

10

1 reference

3 August 2017

Shanta Sarfare

12

1 reference

3 August 2017

Kevin Schultz

13

1 reference

3 August 2017

Ryan Splittgerber

14

1 reference

3 August 2017

Jason Stephenson

15

1 reference

3 August 2017

Cristy Tower

16

1 reference

3 August 2017

R Grace Walton

17

1 reference

3 August 2017

Alexander Zotov

18

1 reference

3 August 2017

1 June 2007

1 reference

Advances in Physiology Education

3 August 2017

1 reference

3 August 2017

31

1 reference

3 August 2017

2

1 reference

3 August 2017

145-152

1 reference

Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula

3 August 2017

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Ethics and scientific publication

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

21 January 2018

How to review a paper

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

The evolution of editorial peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Biomedical information, peer review, and conflict of interest as they influence public health

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Stem cells. ...and how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

The Messenger under Attack — Intimidation of Researchers by Special-Interest Groups

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Internet encyclopaedias go head to head

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Stem cell research. Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Peer review in biomedical publication

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Biases in medical literature.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

The communities of scientists and journal peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

What do peer reviewers do?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

One editor's views on conflict of interest

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Editorial peer review in US medical journals

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1152%2FADVAN.00104.2006

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

21 January 2018

1 reference

27 May 2022

https://opencitations.net/index/coci/api/v1/citations/10.1001/JAMA.280.3.234

Identifiers

DOI

10.1152/ADVAN.00104.2006

1 reference

3 August 2017

1 reference