Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/american-journal-of-neuroradiology/peer-review-past-present-and-future-IUVEtn0qMz
References (15)
-
G. Regehr, G. Bordage (2006)
To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers preferMedical Education, 40
-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf.AccessedonDecember19,2011 -
Fiona Godlee, C. Gale, Christopher Martyn (1998)
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA, 280 3
-
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1–139473352.html -
http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2008/01/blogging-and-peer-review.html.AccessedonDecember19,2011 -
D. Rennie (2002)
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.JAMA, 287 21
-
C. Estrada, A. Kalet, Wally Smith, M. Chin (2006)
How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and other journalsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 21
-
S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, F. Godlee, Lyda Osorio, Richard Smith (2008)
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101
-
S. Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, Richard Smith (1999)
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trialBMJ, 318
-
http://srdta.cochrane.org/sites/srdta.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Editorial_Process_for_DTARS_web_document.doc%5B1%5D.pdf.AccessedonDecem-ber19,2011 -
R. Smith (1999)
Opening up BMJ peer reviewBMJ, 318
-
S. Schroter, L. Tite, A. Hutchings, N. Black (2006)
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.JAMA, 295 3
-
R. Spier (2002)
The history of the peer-review process.Trends in biotechnology, 20 8
-
OpeningupBMJpeerreview.Abeginningthatshouldleadtocom- plete transparency -
S. Goldbeck-Wood (1999)
Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?BMJ, 318
- Publisher
- American Journal of Neuroradiology
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Neuroradiology.
- ISSN
- 0195-6108
- eISSN
- 1936-959X
- DOI
- 10.3174/ajnr.A3025
- pmid
- 22403775
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
1. ↵ http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Historyofpeerreview.html . Accessed on December 19, 2011 2. ↵ Spier R . The history of the peer-review process . Trends in Biotech 2002 ; 20 : 357 – 78 CrossRef 3. ↵ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1–139473352.html . Accessed on December 19, 2011 4. ↵ Schroter S , Tite L , Hutchings A , et al . Difference in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors and editors . JAMA 2006 ; 295 : 314 – 17 CrossRef Medline 5. ↵ van Rooyen S , Godlee F , Smith R , et al . Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewer's recommendations: a randomized trial . BMJ 1999 ; 318 : 23 – 27 Abstract / FREE Full Text 6. ↵ Regehr G , Bordage G . To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer . Med Educ 2006 ; 40 : 832 – 39 CrossRef Medline 7. ↵ Smith R . Opening up BMJ peer review. A beginning that should lead to complete transparency . BMJ 1999 ; 318 : 4 Search Google Scholar 8. ↵ Goldbeck-Wood S . Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or
Journal
American Journal of Neuroradiology – American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published: Nov 1, 2012