Working double-blind. Nature 2008; 451: 605–606 |
Commentary/editorial |
Blaustein JD. Fraud: just say no! Endocrinology 2010; 151: 1–3 |
Commentary/editorial |
Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23: 4–6 |
Review |
Christensen NB and Yokomizo A. How to peer review. Int J Urol 2010; 17: 754 |
Commentary/editorial |
Coats AJ. Ethical authorship and publishing. Int J Cardiol 2009; 131: 149–150 |
Commentary/editorial |
Cossu R. Anonymous but fully recognised. Waste Manag 2010; 30: 1–3 |
Commentary/editorial |
Fisher RS and Powers LE. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside. Epilepsia 2004; 45: 889–894 |
Commentary/editorial |
Freedman JE. Promoting ethical conduct in the publication of research. Cardiovasc Ther 2008; 26: 89–90 |
Commentary/editorial |
Freshwater D. Editors and publishing: integrity, trust and faith. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2006; 13: 1–2 |
Commentary/editorial |
Froman RD. Blinded review revisited. Res Nurs Health 2010; 33: 273–275 |
Commentary/editorial |
Froman RD. Hitting the bull’s eye rather than shooting yourself between the eyes. Res Nurs Health 2008; 31: 399–401 |
Commentary/editorial |
Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a publisher’s perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2007; (152): 1–26 |
Commentary/editorial |
Groves T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ 2010; 341: c6424 |
Commentary/editorial |
Heddle NM and Ness PM. Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities. Transfusion 2009; 49: 2265–2268 |
Review |
Hoppin FG, Jr. [How I review an original scientific paper]. Rev Mal Respir 2003; 20: 671–678 |
Commentary/editorial |
Johnson JT, Niparko JK, Levine PA, et al. Standards for ethical publication. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 133: 7–8 |
Commentary/editorial |
Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ 2010; 341: c6425 |
Commentary/editorial |
Klein DF and Glick ID. Conflict of interest, journal review, and publication policy. Neuropsychopharmacology 2008; 33: 3023–3026 |
Commentary/editorial |
Lemann J, Jr. Serving as a reviewer. Kidney Int 2002; 62: 1081–1087 |
Review |
Loonen MP. Alternative peer review system: peer agreement system. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 1931–1932 |
Commentary/editorial |
Manske PR. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. J Hand Surg Am 2006; 31: 1051–1055 |
Review |
McCalmont TH. Crystal clear. J Cutan Pathol 2011; 38: 540–541 |
Commentary/editorial |
Minion D, Sorial E, and Endean E. Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46: 391–393 |
Commentary/editorial |
Oyesiku NM. The registrar. Neurosurgery 2010; 67: 1165–1166 |
Commentary/editorial |
Pitkin RM. Blinded manuscript review: an idea whose time has come? Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 781–782 |
Commentary/editorial |
PLoS Medicine Editors. Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e199 |
Commentary/editorial |
Pollock RE and Ewer MS. The integrity of authorship: doing the right thing. Cancer 2010; 116: 3986–3987 |
Commentary/editorial |
Provenzale JM and Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nucl Med Technol 2006; 34: 92–99 |
Review |
Reider B. Fabrication, falsification et al. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 445–447 |
Commentary/editorial |
Thomas SP. The long journey to publication: some thoughts on the journal review process. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1998; 19: 415–418 |
Commentary/editorial |
Tierney AJ. Reviewers support blinding in peer review. J Adv Nurs 2008; 64: 113 |
Commentary/editorial |
Triadafilopoulos G. The manuscript review process. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: S23–25 |
Commentary/editorial |
van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, and Evans SJ. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010; 341: c5729 |
Randomized control trial |
Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 348–353 |
Survey |
Wagner AK, Boninger ML, Levy C, et al. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82: 790–802 |
Review |
Webb TJ, O’Hara B, and Freckleton RP. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23: 351–353; author reply 353–354 |
Commentary/editorial |
Yoshida Y. Peer review system: any other choice? Int J Hematol 2006; 83: 191–192 |
Commentary/editorial |