and Peer Review

Overview

Journal JID Innov

Specialty Dermatology

Date 2021 Dec 15

PMID 34909739

Authors

Russell P Hall 3rd

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

References

Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B . Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189311. PMC: 5728564. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311. View

Kronick D . Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990; 263(10):1321-2. View

Horrobin D . The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990; 263(10):1438-41. View

INGELFINGER F . The New England journal of Medicine: editor's report, 1967-1977. N Engl J Med. 1977; 296(26):1530-5. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197706302962615. View

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R . Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004; 328(7441):673. PMC: 381220. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE. View

Rothwell P, Martyn C . Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?. Brain. 2000; 123 ( Pt 9):1964-9. DOI: 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964. View

Weissmann G . Science fraud: from patchwork mouse to patchwork data. FASEB J. 2006; 20(6):587-90. DOI: 10.1096/fj.06-0401ufm. View

Boerckel J, Plotkin L, Sims N . Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers. J Bone Miner Res. 2021; 36(7):1220-1224. PMC: 8292169. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4319. View

Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K . Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC. 2016; 25(3):227-43. PMC: 4975196. View

10.

Horrobin D . Something rotten at the core of science?. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2001; 22(2):51-2. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-6147(00)01618-7. View

11.

Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, Moylan E . Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Res. 2018; 7:969. PMC: 6073088. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1. View

12.

Spier R . The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol. 2002; 20(8):357-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6. View

13.

Mavrogenis A, Quaile A, Scarlat M . The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop. 2020; 44(3):413-415. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1. View

14.

Csiszar A . Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016; 532(7599):306-8. DOI: 10.1038/532306a. View

15.

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R . What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?. J R Soc Med. 2008; 101(10):507-14. PMC: 2586872. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062. View

16.

. Can peer review police fraud?. Nat Neurosci. 2006; 9(2):149. DOI: 10.1038/nn0206-149. View

17.

Ross-Hellauer T, Gorogh E . Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019; 4:4. PMC: 6394088. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9. View

18.

Tennant J, Ross-Hellauer T . The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020; 5:6. PMC: 7191707. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1. View

19.

Smith R . Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006; 99(4):178-82. PMC: 1420798. DOI: 10.1177/014107680609900414. View

20.

Scharschmidt B, DeAmicis A, Bacchetti P, Held M . Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation. J Clin Invest. 1994; 93(5):1877-80. PMC: 294293. DOI: 10.1172/JCI117177. View