Skip to main content
. 2012 Feb 1;7(1):37–44. doi: 10.1007/s11552-012-9392-6

Table 3.

Articles reviewed

Title Article type
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