Skip to main content

. 1994 May;93(5):1877–1880. doi: 10.1172/JCI117177

Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

B F Scharschmidt ¹, A DeAmicis ¹, P Bacchetti ¹, M J Held ¹

PMCID: PMC294293 PMID: 8182120

1877

Images in this article

Image
on p.1878

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

Cole S., Cole J. R., Simon G. A. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science. 1981 Nov 20;214(4523):881–886. doi: 10.1126/science.7302566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Horrobin D. F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1438–1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ingelfinger F. J. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974 May;56(5):686–692. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(74)90635-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Oxman A. D., Guyatt G. H., Singer J., Goldsmith C. H., Hutchison B. G., Milner R. A., Streiner D. L. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(1):91–98. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90205-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
doi: 10.1172/JCI114396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
Smith R. Problems with peer review and alternatives. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988 Mar 12;296(6624):774–777. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6624.774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stossel T. P. Volume: papers and academic promotion. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Jan;106(1):146–149. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-1-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ACTIONS

RESOURCES