Article information
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
E. Wager, F. Godlee, T. Jefferson.
What is peer review.
How to Survive Peer Review, pp. 3-12
[2.]
L.M. Sylvia, J.L. Herbel.
Manuscript Peer Review—A Guide for Health Care Professionals.
Pharmacotherapy, 21 (2001), pp. 395-404
[3.]
D. Rennie.
Editorial peer review: its development and rationale.
Peer Review in Health Sciences, pp. 1-13
[5.]
D. Rennie.
Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review.
JAMA, 256 (1986), pp. 2391-2392
[6.]
J.C. Bailar, K.J. Patterson.
Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda.
N Engl J Med, 312 (1985), pp. 654-657
[7.]
D. Rennie.
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2759-2760
[8.]
Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, Ill. JAMA 1990;263:1317-441.
[9.]
The 2nd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Proceedings. Chicago, Illinois, September 9-11, 1993. JAMA. 1994;272:91-173.
[10.]
Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, Czech Republic, September 1997. JAMA. 1998;280:213-302.
[11.]
IV International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Barcelona, Spain, September 14-16, 2001. JAMA. 2002;287:2759-871.
[12.]
A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, D. Rennie.
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 240-242
[14.]
B.P. Squires.
A global network for medical journal editors.
CMAJ, 152 (1995), pp. 62-64
[15.]
S.N. Goodman, J. Berlin, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher.
Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine.
Ann Intern Med, 121 (1994), pp. 11-21
[16.]
P.M. Rothwell, C.N. Martyn.
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?.
Brain, 123 (2000), pp. 1964-1969
[17.]
A.M. Link.
US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 246-247
[18.]
J. Garrow, M. Butterfield, J. Marshall, A. Williamson.
The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 286-287
[19.]
A.T. Evans, R.A. McNutt, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher.
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
J Gen Intern Med, 8 (1993), pp. 422-428
[20.]
N. Black, S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, R. Smith, S. Evans.
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 231-233
[21.]
M.L. Callaham, R.K. Knopp, E.J. Gallagher.
Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2781-2783
[22.]
M.L. Callaham, R.L. Wears, J.F. Waeckerle.
Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
Ann Emerg Med, 32 (1998), pp. 318-322
[23.]
D.M. Schultz.
Are three heads better than two?.
Scientometrics, 84 (2010), pp. 277-292
[24.]
M.K. Cho, A.C. Justice, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, J.F. Waeckerle, M.L. Callaham, et al.
Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 243-245
[25.]
F. Godlee, C.R. Gale, C.N. Martyn.
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 237-240
[26.]
S. Van Rooyen, T. Delamothe, S.J. Evans.
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
BMJ, 341 (2010), pp. c5729
[27.]
J.R. Hurst, E.C. Howard, J.A. Wedzicha.
Reviewer selection: author or editor knows best?.
Thorax, 60 (2005), pp. 799
[28.]
G. Bordage.
Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.
Acad Med, 76 (2001), pp. 889-896
[29.]
D.J. Benos, K.L. Kirk, J.E. Hall.
How to review a paper.
Adv Physiol Educ, 27 (2003), pp. 47-52
[30.]
E. Frank.
Editors’ Requests of Peer Reviewers: A Study and a Proposal.
Preventive Medicine, 25 (1996), pp. 102-104
[31.]
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.
International Committee of Medical Journal.
Ann Intern Med, 126 (1997), pp. 36-47
[32.]
M. Marusic, A. Marusic.
Good editorial practice: editors as educators.
Croat Med J., 42 (2001), pp. 113-120
[33.]
D. Moher, A.R. Jadad.
How to peer review a manuscript.
Peer Review in Health Sciences, 2nd ed, pp. 183-190
[34.]
P.E. Bourne, A. Korngreen.
Ten simple rules for reviewers.
PLoS Comput Biol, 2 (2006), pp. e110
[35.]
S. Van Rooyen, N. Black, F. Godlee.
Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.
J Clin Epidemiol, 52 (1999), pp. 625-629
[36.]
J.M. Provenzale, R.J. Stanley.
A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript.
AJR Am J Roentgenol, 185 (2005), pp. 848-854
[37.]
L.W. Roberts, J. Coverdale, K. Edenharder, A. Louie.
How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach.
Acad Psychiatry, 28 (2004), pp. 81-87
[38.]
S.H. Downs, N. Black.
The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 52 (1998), pp. 377-384
[39.]
T. Jefferson, E. Wager, F. Davidoff.
Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2786-2790
[40.]
D.J. Pierson.
The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication.
Respir Care, 49 (2004), pp. 1246-1252
[41.]
E. Von Elm, M.C. Costanza, B. Walder, M.R. Tramer.
More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 3 (2003), pp. 12
[42.]
R.W. Scherer, K. Dickersin, P. Langenberg.
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 158-162
[43.]
F.G. Hoppin Jr..
How I review an original scientific article.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166 (2002), pp. 1019-1023
[44.]
E. Wager, F. Godlee, T. Jefferson.
Methodological review checklists.
How to Survive Peer Review, 2nd ed, pp. 51-55
[45.]
Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/ [cited 2010 Dec 19].
[46.]
S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, F. Godlee, L. Osorio, R. Smith.
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?.
J R Soc Med, 101 (2008), pp. 507-514
Copyright © 2011. Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia
