My NCBI | Sign In
RSS Settings
  • Search:

Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination
  • Your browser version may not work well with NCBI's Web applications. More information here...

Results: 1 to 20 of 113

1.

What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R.

J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14.PMID: 18840867 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

2.

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

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R.

BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673. Epub 2004 Mar 2.PMID: 14996698 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

3.

Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N.

JAMA. 2006 Jan 18;295(3):314-7.PMID: 16418467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

4.

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

Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML.

Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):310-7.PMID: 9737492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

5.

Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.

Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL.

JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):229-31.PMID: 9676664 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

6.

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

Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF.

Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(3 Pt 1):318-22.PMID: 9737493 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

7.

Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.

Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN.

JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):237-40.PMID: 9676667 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

8.

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

van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R.

BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7.PMID: 9872878 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

9.

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

Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ.

JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2781-3.PMID: 12038910 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

10.

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000016. Review.PMID: 17443635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

11.

The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

Callaham ML, Tercier J.

PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e40.PMID: 17411314 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

12.

Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.

Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty MC, Freda MC, Kearney MH.

J Adv Nurs. 2008 Oct;64(2):131-8. Epub 2008 Sep 1.PMID: 18764847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

13.

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

Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B.

JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):143-6. Erratum in: JAMA 1994 Oct 19;272(15):1170. PMID: 8015127 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

14.

What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S.

JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):231-3.PMID: 9676665 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

15.

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

van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N.

JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):234-7.PMID: 9676666 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

16.

Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.

Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M.

PLoS One. 2007 Mar 28;2(3):e332.PMID: 17389922 [PubMed]Related articlesFree article

17.

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

Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D.

JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2. Erratum in: JAMA 1998 Sep 16;280(11):968. PMID: 9676668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

18.

An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.

Wade D, Tennant A.

Clin Rehabil. 2004 Mar;18(2):117-24.PMID: 15053119 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

19.

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

Callaham ML, Schriger DL.

Ann Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;40(3):323-8.PMID: 12192358 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articles

20.

Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.

Marusić A, Lukić IK, Marusić M, McNamee D, Sharp D, Horton R.

Croat Med J. 2002 Jun;43(3):286-9.PMID: 12035133 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related articlesFree article

Supplemental Content

Filter your results:

Find related data

Recent activity