Table 7.
List of works on main path (1), main paths (2) and island (3)—part 2
| Year | Code | First author | Title | Journal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 23 | Fisher, M | The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer-review | JAMA |
| 1994 | 123 | Rennie, D | The 2nd international-congress on peer-review in biomedical publication | JAMA |
| 1994 | 123 | Smith, R | Promoting research into peer-review | BRIT MED J |
| 1995 | 123 | Jefferson, T | Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluations necessary... | HEALTH ECON |
| 1995 | 23 | Moher, D | Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials... | CONTROL CLIN TRIALS |
| 1996 | 23 | Jadad, AR | Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials... | CONTROL CLIN TRIALS |
| 1996 | 123 | Drummond, MF | Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ | BRIT MED J |
| 1996 | 23 | Begg, C | Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials—the CONSORT statement | JAMA |
| 1998 | 3 | Godlee, F | Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and... | JAMA |
| 1998 | 3 | Justice, AC | Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?—a randomized controlled trial | JAMA |
| 1998 | 23 | Weber, EJ | Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting—Why investigators fail to publish | JAMA |
| 1998 | 23 | van Rooyen, S | Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review—A randomized trial | JAMA |
| 1998 | 23 | Black, N | What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? | JAMA |
| 1998 | 3 | Campanario, JM | Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1 | SCI COMMUN |
| 1998 | 123 | Jefferson, T | Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions... | JAMA |
| 1998 | 3 | Howard, L | Peer review and editorial decision-making | BRIT J PSYCHIAT |
| 1998 | 123 | Rennie, D | Peer review in Prague | JAMA |
| 1998 | 2 | Hatch, CL | Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints... | JAMA |
| 1998 | 23 | Moher, D | Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy... | LANCET |
| 1998 | 23 | Callaham, ML | Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts... | JAMA |
| 1999 | 3 | van Rooyen, S | Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations... | BRIT MED J |
| 1999 | 123 | Smith, R | Opening up BMJ peer review—a beginning that should lead to complete transparency | BRIT MED J |
| 1999 | 123 | Goldbeck-Wood, S | Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen? | BRIT MED J |
| 1999 | 2 | Moher, D | Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: QUOROM | LANCET |
| 2000 | 123 | Walsh, E | Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial | BRIT J PSYCHIAT |
| 2000 | 2 | Stroup, DF | Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology—A proposal for reporting | JAMA |
| 2001 | 2 | Altman, DG | The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials... | ANN INTERN MED |
| 2001 | 2 | Moher, D | The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports... | LANCET |
| 2002 | 123 | Jefferson, T | Effects of editorial peer review—a systematic review | JAMA |
| 2002 | 123 | Jefferson, T | Measuring the quality of editorial peer review | JAMA |
| 2002 | 123 | Rennie, D | Fourth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication | JAMA |
| 2002 | 23 | Rowland, F | The peer-review process | LEARN PUBL |
| 2002 | 123 | Opthof, T | The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias... | CARDIOVASC RES |
| 2003 | 23 | Hojat, M | Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science:... | ADV HEALTH SCI EDUC |
| 2003 | 23 | Wets, K | Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000 | LEARN PUBL |