Peer Review: Past, Present, and Future

References

1. 1.↵
   http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Historyofpeerreview.html. Accessed on December 19, 2011
2. 2.↵
   1. Spier R

   . The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotech 2002;20:357–78

   CrossRef
3. 3.↵
   http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1–139473352.html. Accessed on December 19, 2011
4. 4.↵
   1. Schroter S,
   2. Tite L,
   3. Hutchings A,
   4. et al

   . Difference in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors and editors. JAMA 2006;295:314–17

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. van Rooyen S,
   2. Godlee F,
   3. Smith R,
   4. 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. 6.↵
   1. Regehr G,
   2. Bordage G

   . To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ 2006;40:832–39

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Smith R

   . Opening up BMJ peer review. A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ 1999;318: 4
8. 8.↵
   1. Goldbeck-Wood S

   . Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 1999;318:44–45

   FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Estrada C,
   2. Kalet A,
   3. Smith K,
   4. et al

   . How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and other journals. J Gen Intern Med 2006;1:281–84
10. 10.↵
    1. Godlee F,
    2. Gale CR,
    3. Martyn CN

    . Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:237–40

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Schroter S,
    2. Black N,
    3. Evans S,
    4. et al

    . What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them. JRSM 2008;101:507–14

    CrossRef
12. 12.↵
    http://www.genomeweb.com/peer-review-broken. Accessed on December 19, 2011
13. 13.↵
    http://srdta.cochrane.org/sites/srdta.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Editorial_Process_for_DTARS_web_document.doc%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed on December 19, 2011
14. 14.↵
    http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/pr_acp_peer_review_steps_out_of_the_shadows.pdf. Accessed on December 19, 2011
15. 15.↵
    http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/index.html. Accessed on December 19, 2011
16. 16.↵
    http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2008/01/blogging-and-peer-review.html. Accessed on December 19, 2011
17. 17.↵
    http://www.plosone.org/static/guidelines.action#production. Accessed on December 19, 2011
18. 18.↵
    http://f1000.com. Accessed on December 19, 2011
19. 19.↵
    http://www.medscape.com. Accessed on December 19, 2011
20. 20.↵
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf. Accessed on December 19, 2011
21. 21.↵
    1. Rennie D

    . Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA 2002;287:2759–60

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science