Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., et al. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 56.
Black, N., Van, R. S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., & Evans, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA, 280, 231–233.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. PLoS ONE, 5(6), e11344.
Bornmann, L., & Werner, M. (2016). The journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Science and Society, 17(8), 1094–1097.
Cobo, E., Cortes, J., Ribera, J. M., Cardellach, F., Selva-O’Callaghan, A., Kostov, B., et al. (2011). Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: Masked randomised trial. BMJ, 343, d6783.
Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J., & Lawson, E. E. (1994). Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA, 272, 137–138.
Gilbert, J. R., Williams, E. S., & Lundberg, G. D. (1994). Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? JAMA, 272, 139–142.
Johnston, D. (2015). Peer review incentives: A simple idea to encourage fast and effective peer review. European Science Editing, 41(3), 70–71.
Kravitz, R. L., Franks, P., Feldman, M. D., Gerrity, M., Byrne, C., & Tierney, W. M. (2010). Editorial peer reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS ONE, 5, e10072.
Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280, 246–247.
Peer Review Survey (2009). Sense about Science. http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html. Accessed Jan 25, 2017.
Polak, J. F. (1995). The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 165, 685–688.
Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295, 1675–1680.
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 507–514.
Stamm, T., Meyer, U., Wiesmann, H. P., Kleinheinz, J., Cehreli, M., et al. (2007). A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine. Head and Face Medicine, 3, 27.
Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? Journal of Epidemiology Community Health, 61, 9–12.
Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community—An international study. Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium.
Willis, M. (2016). Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned Publishing, 29, 5–7.
Zaharie, M. A., & Osoian, C. L. (2016). Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34, 69–79.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4