4.2 Editorial Material

Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

Related references

Note: Only part of the references are listed.
Editorial Material Biology

Biology direct: celebrating 7 years of open, published peer review

Eugene V. Koonin et al.

BIOLOGY DIRECT (2013)

Article Health Care Sciences & Services

Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

Roger Chun-Man Ho et al.

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (2013)

Article Computer Science, Information Systems

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)

Review Computer Science, Information Systems

Bias in peer review

Carole J. Lee et al.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2013)

Article Multidisciplinary Sciences

Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

John Bohannon

SCIENCE (2013)

Editorial Material Biology

Peering into peer-review at GigaScience

Scott C. Edmunds

GIGASCIENCE (2013)

Editorial Material Multidisciplinary Sciences

Predatory publishers are corrupting open access

Jeffrey Beall

NATURE (2012)

Review Mathematical & Computational Biology

Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review

Satrajit S. Ghosh et al.

FRONTIERS IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE (2012)

Editorial Material Pharmacology & Pharmacy

Only connect: the merger of BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology

Elizabeth C. Moylan et al.

BMC PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY (2012)

Review Medicine, General & Internal

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)