| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| P356 | DOI | 10.1001/JAMA.280.3.234 |
| P698 | PubMed publication ID | 9676666 |
| P2093 | author name string | R Smith | |
| S Evans | |||
| N Black | |||
| F Godlee | |||
| S van Rooyen | |||
| P433 | issue | 3 | |
| P407 | language of work or name | English | Q1860 |
| P921 | main subject | peer review | Q215028 |
| P304 | page(s) | 234-237 | |
| P577 | publication date | 1998-07-01 | |
| P1433 | published in | The Journal of the American Medical Association | Q1470970 |
| P1476 | title | Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial | |
| P478 | volume | 280 |
| Q36887933 | A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors |
| Q106988006 | A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review |
| Q33269085 | A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review |
| Q33852921 | A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science |
| Q35521835 | A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. |
| Q36478669 | A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors |
| Q57837894 | Abstract reporting in randomized clinical trials of acute lung injury: An audit and assessment of a quality of reporting score* |
| Q58537101 | Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines |
| Q87379139 | Advancing the peer review process: a multifaceted approach to improving quality |
| Q36090561 | An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices |
| Q33730692 | Assessing "best evidence": issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews |
| Q37256154 | Author perception of peer review |
| Q38014155 | Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. |
| Q55970050 | Bias in peer review |
| Q92524377 | Blacklists and Whitelists To Tackle Predatory Publishing: a Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis |
| Q79310982 | Blind faith |
| Q37881979 | Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. |
| Q37258716 | Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals |
| Q75221684 | Blinding of reviewers and authors |
| Q57286644 | Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials |
| Q87725212 | Burdens Without Blessings: Peer Reviewers Get No Respect |
| Q89199887 | Burdens without blessings: Peer reviewers get no respect |
| Q34521407 | Changes in JAPhA's peer review system |
| Q30818505 | Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN): evolution of a content management system for point-of-care clinical decision support. |
| Q86805396 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q86826404 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q86837744 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q86846935 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q95544683 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q95544686 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q95545387 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q95548947 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q43771235 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q45027659 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals |
| Q44788771 | Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. |
| Q26995307 | Clinical outcomes in psoriatic arthritis: A systematic literature review |
| Q48140100 | Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review |
| Q28727376 | Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web |
| Q33677617 | Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts |
| Q49522900 | Do peer review models affect clinicians' trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors |
| Q24244965 | Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies |
| Q24245573 | Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies |
| Q54403110 | Editorial: CORR ® Will Change to Double-blind Peer Review-What Took Us So Long to Get There? |
| Q85826368 | Editorial: premature publishing and over-fragmentation |
| Q59817792 | Editorial—The peer-review system: prospects and challenges |
| Q61737696 | Efecto de la revisión estadística en la calidad de los manuscritos publicados en MEDICINA CLÍNICA: estudio aleatorizado |
| Q33778862 | Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review |
| Q24648998 | Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial |
| Q37809927 | Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial |
| Q35680672 | Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial |
| Q39011265 | Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal |
| Q92983516 | Efforts to Limit Publication Bias and Improve Quality in the Journal: Introduction of Double-Blind Peer Review |
| Q36800618 | Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials |
| Q38336925 | Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors |
| Q58423339 | Ethics of scientific peer review: Are we judging or helping the review recipients? |
| Q79686333 | Evaluation of peer review in biomedical publication |
| Q42874515 | Evidence based publishing |
| Q42120144 | Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? |
| Q46019513 | How to Be an Outstanding Reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and Other Journals. |
| Q34210922 | How to write a peer review. |
| Q30249679 | Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| Q26995526 | Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review |
| Q89257549 | Inaugural Editorial |
| Q35001361 | Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies |
| Q35041938 | Interventions aimed at improving immunization rates |
| Q54350103 | Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality. |
| Q30233612 | Manuscript peer review--a guide for health care professionals |
| Q38544410 | Masked Reviews Are Not Fairer Reviews |
| Q24246167 | Masking reviewers at the study inclusion stage in a systematic review of health care interventions |
| Q24247365 | Masking reviewers at the study inclusion stage in a systematic review of health care interventions |
| Q79872229 | New policies aim to minimize potential or actual conflicts of interest |
| Q36312778 | Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. |
| Q96822742 | Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing |
| Q42759977 | Opening up BMJ peer review |
| Q38233570 | Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard |
| Q82283253 | Peer review |
| Q87587951 | Peer review |
| Q28076160 | Peer review and the publication process |
| Q26783905 | Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study |
| Q38821120 | Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process |
| Q35209107 | Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update |
| Q77845273 | Peer review of manuscripts |
| Q33810540 | Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem |
| Q21686079 | Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals |
| Q91833330 | Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind? |
| Q92841182 | Perspectives on double-blind peer review from collectivist cultural contexts |
| Q53544087 | Printed medical journals - will they survive? |
| Q38054737 | Publishing your work in a journal: understanding the peer review process. |
| Q36608901 | Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument |
| Q98158354 | Recommendations for Blinded Peer Review: A Survey of High-Quality Pediatrics Reviewers |
| Q41820514 | Reply to "On the Impact Factor and the ASM Editorial Policy". |
| Q37009713 | Reporting of adherence to medication in recent randomized controlled trials of 6 chronic diseases: a systematic literature review |
| Q89946544 | Research on peer review and biomedical publication |
| Q96125446 | Reviewer Blinding in Peer Review: Perspectives From Reviewers at Three Stages of Their Careers |
| Q55354441 | Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. |
| Q58422686 | Seeking good peer review in geomorphology |
| Q36875584 | Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: a weighting approach |
| Q34775378 | Serving as a reviewer |
| Q57828500 | Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process |
| Q33546218 | Should peer review be an open process? |
| Q37703888 | Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance? |
| Q42947345 | Standards in the face of uncertainty--peer review is flawed and under-researched, but the best we have |
| Q30830681 | Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial |
| Q98281639 | Surviving peer review |
| Q37671448 | Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects |
| Q34774886 | Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol). |
| Q57669900 | Testing and adjusting for publication bias |
| Q38544406 | The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process |
| Q57711652 | The Effect of Authority on the Persuasiveness of Mathematical Arguments |
| Q59152572 | The JBJS Peer-Review Scoring Scale: A valid, reliable instrument for measuring the quality of peer review reports |
| Q30485613 | The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions |
| Q43081672 | The new millennium: time for a change! |
| Q78019440 | The peer-review process of the Journal of Neurosurgery |
| Q34636617 | The ups and downs of peer review |
| Q74643122 | The value of the blind review process: is blindness best? |
| Q36574019 | To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer |
| Q74455660 | To mask or not-to-mask |
| Q91375806 | Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science |
| Q82715594 | Training the reviewer? |
| Q24288964 | Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities |
| Q36274704 | What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective. |
| Q84356947 | When the blind lead the blind: In the pit of peer review |
| Q58179226 | Who stands to win from double-blind peer review? |
| Q35303719 | Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials |
| Q73831907 | [Peer review in scientific journals] |
| Q58664846 | [Publication ethics are ignored: the integrity of science is in danger] |
| Q82535656 | [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers] |
| Q74697763 | [The evaluation of science and peer review: past and present] |
Search more.