The importance of peer review
2. Zaharie MA, Seeber M. Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics. 2018; 117:1587–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2912-613.
3. Cho YG, Park HA. Peer review process in medical journals. Korean J Fam Med. 2013; 34:372-6.
4. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell M, Hirsch JA. Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias Pain Physician. 2015; 18:E1-E14.
5. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals J R Soc Med. 2006; 99:178–82.
6. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:2.
7. Ware M. Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. PRC Summary Papers. 2008; 4:4-20.
8. Rowley JR, Sbaffi L. Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline. Journal of Information Science. 2017; 44:644–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517740821.
9. Blum K, Jacobs W, Modestino EJ, DiNubile N, Baron D, McLaughlin T, et al. Insurance companies fighting the peer review empire without any validity: The case for addiction and pain modalities in the face of an American drug epidemic. SEJ Surgery and Pain. 2018; 1:1–11.
10. Gannon F. The essential role of peer review. EMBO Rep. 2001; 2:743.
11. Allen H, Cury A, Gaston T , Graf C, Wakley H, Willis M. What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222.
12. Jackson L, Peters MA, Benade L, Devine N, Arndt S, Forster D, et al. Is peer review in academic publishing still working? Open Review of Educational Research 2018; 5:95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2018.1479139.
13. Stahel P, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Medicine. 2014; 12:179-82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
14. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014; 12:128. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z.
Copyright (c) 2019 NASCER E CRESCER - BIRTH AND GROWTH MEDICAL JOURNAL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and access
This journal offers immediate free access to its content, following the principle that providing free scientific knowledge to the public provides greater global democratization of knowledge.
The works are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International license.
Nascer e Crescer – Birth and Growth Medical Journal do not charge any submission or processing fee to the articles submitted.