Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.Peer review: The current landscape and future trends
Michael Jubb
LEARNED PUBLISHING (2016)
Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century
Irene Hames
SCIENCE EDITING (2014)
Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers
Adrian Mulligan et al.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2013)
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
Ferric C. Fang et al.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2012)
Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science
Nikolaus Kriegeskorte
FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE (2012)
Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?
Richard L. Kravitz et al.
PLOS ONE (2010)
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial
Susan van Rooyen et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2010)
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
Sara Schroter et al.
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE (2008)
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies
T. Jefferson et al.
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (2007)
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial
S Schroter et al.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2004)
Share Paper
