Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 185

1.

Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F.

JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2784-6. Review.

PMID:
12038911
2.

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
3.

Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.

Jolly PD.

N Z Vet J. 2003 Aug;51(4):199.

PMID:
16032326
4.

Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F.

JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2786-90.

PMID:
12038912
5.

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.

Wager E, Middleton P.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000002. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):MR000002.

PMID:
17443626
6.

Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.

Wager E, Middleton P.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):MR000002. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000002.pub3. Review.

PMID:
18843753
7.

Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.

Vercellini P, Buggio L, ViganĂ² P, Somigliana E.

Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jun;31:15-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014. Epub 2016 Apr 26. Review.

PMID:
27129625
8.
9.

The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.

McGhan WF, Al M, Doshi JA, Kamae I, Marx SE, Rindress D.

Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10.

10.

Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.

Landy DC, Coverdale JH, McCullough LB, Sharp RR.

Acad Med. 2009 Apr;84(4):495-7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8bf4.

PMID:
19318788
12.

Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.

Benson PJ.

Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015 Oct;97(7):487-9. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2015.0032.

14.

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I.

BMC Med. 2016 Jun 10;14(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5. Review.

15.

Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review.

Wager E, Middleton P.

JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2821-4. Review.

PMID:
12038923
17.

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping.

Siler K, Lee K, Bero L.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jan 13;112(2):360-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112. Epub 2014 Dec 22.

18.
19.

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
20.

Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review.

Knudson DV, Morrow JR Jr, Thomas JR.

Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014 Jun;85(2):127-35. Review.

PMID:
25098008

Supplemental Content

Support Center