Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Atencion Primaria logoLink to Atencion Primaria
. 2013 Apr 5;27(6):432–439. [Article in Spanish] doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(01)78827-0

La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas

J Gérvas 1, M Pérez Fernández 1
PMCID: PMC7676625  PMID: 11334583

The content is available as a PDF (103.5 KB).

Biblografía

  • 1.Committee on the Conduct of Science On being a scientist. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1989;86:9053–9074. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.23.9053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rodríguez Artalejo F. Ocultar la identidad de los autores y evaluadores de artículos. Gac Sanit. 1996;10:159–160. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(96)71890-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial per review. JAMA. 1990;263:1323–1329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Relman A.S. The NIH «E-Biomed» proposal. A potential threat to the evaluation and orderly dissemination of new clinical studies. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1828–1829. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199906103402309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ingelfinger F.J. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686–692. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(74)90635-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Harnard S. Peer commentary on peer review. Behav Brain Sciences. 1982;5:185–186. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Peters D.P., Ceci S.J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals. The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sciences. 1982;5:187–255. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kassirer J.P., Campion E.W. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96–97. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.2.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pierie J.P.E.N., Walvoort H.C., Overbeke J.P.M. Readers’ evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348:1480–1483. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jiménez Villa J. La calidad de las publicaciones. Aten Primaria. 1996;17:367–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bingham C. Peer review on the Internet: a better class of conversation. Lancet. 1998;351(Supl 1):10–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Reid A.J. Canadian Family Physiscian ’s peer reviewers. Unsung heros. Can Fam Physician. 1998;44:13–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bingham C.M., Higgins G., Coleman R., Weyden M.B.V.D. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study. Lancet. 1998;352:441–445. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11510-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res. 1994;28:1134–1139. doi: 10.1093/cvr/28.8.1134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Taylor R. NIH panel to monitor peer review in action. Nature. 1995;375:438. doi: 10.1038/375438a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cho M.k., Justice A.C., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Waeckerle J.F., Callaham M.L. Masking author identity in peer review What factors influence masking success? JAMA. 1998;280:243–245. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review. JAMA. 1990;263:1338–1340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Olsen C.M. Peer review of the biomedical literature. Am J Emerg Med. 1990;8:356–358. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(90)90096-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rodríguez Artalejo F. Prevención de enfermedades vasculares en las mujeres. Aten Primaria. 1998;22(Supl 1):200–295. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Petitti D.B. Hormone replacement therapy and heart disease prevention. Experimentation trumps observation. JAMA. 1998;280:650–652. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.7.650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution. Time to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ. 1997;315:759–760. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Smith R. Promoting research into peer review. An invitation to join it. BMJ. 1994;309:143–144. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6948.143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Neuhauser D. Peer review and the research commons. A problem of success. Med Care. 1997;35:301–302. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199704000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Anderson K.R., Lucey J.F. Una nueva capacidad: la revisión post-publicación por expertos para Pediatrics. Pediatrics (ed. esp.) 1999;48:1. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ. 1999;318:4–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Plasència A. Gaceta Sanitaria: un mensajero en la casa común de la salud pública. Gac Sanit. 1999;13:4–5. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(99)71314-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Horton R. Luck, lotteries and loopholes of grant review. Lancet. 1996;348:1255–1256. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)65751-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.LaPorte R.E., Marler E., Akazawa S., Sauer F., Gamboa C., Shenton C. The death of biomedical journals. BMJ. 1995;310:1387–1390. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6991.1387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Squires B.P. Peer review under scrutiny. Report on the third International Congress in Prague, 1997. Can Fam Physician. 1998;44:15–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Klein M.C. Studying episotomy: when beliefs conflict with science. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:483–488. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abby M., Massey M.D., Galandiuk S., Polk H.C. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. JAMA. 1994;272:105–107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Roberts J., Fletcher R.H., Fletcher S.W. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:119–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Justice A.C., Berlin J.A., Fletcher S.W., Fletcher R.H., Goodman S.N. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? JAMA. 1994;272:117–119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Godlee F., Gale C.R., Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237–240. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lock S., Wells F., editors. Fraud and misconduct. BMJ Pub; Londres: 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vilarroya O. Ética de la publicación médica. In: Varios x., editor. Medicina clínica. Manual de estilo. Doyma; Barcelona: 1993. pp. 117–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Smith R. Misconduct in research: editors respond. The Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) is formed. BMJ. 1997;315:201–202. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7102.201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Horrobin D.F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990;263:1438–1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Polak J.F. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:685–688. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.3.7645496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rennie D., Knoll E. Investigating peer review. Ann Intern Med. 1988;109:181. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-109-3-181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kronick D.A. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;262:1321–1322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Horrobin D.F. Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet. 1996;348:1293–1295. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)08029-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Evans A.T., McNutt R.A., Fletcher S.W., Fletcher R.H. The characteristics of peer review who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–428. doi: 10.1007/BF02599618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.McNutt R.A., Evans A.T., Fletcher R.H., Fletcher S.W. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fischer M., Friedman S.B., Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994;272:143–146. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rooyen S.V., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–237. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Rennie D. PEER investigators. Does masking author identify improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trail. JAMA. 1998;280:240–242. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.O’Donnell M. Evidence-based illiteracy: time to rescue «the literature». Lancet. 2000;355:489–491. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)82040-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Navarro V. La relevancia de la experiencia norteamericana en la reforma del sistema nacional de salud británico. El caso del GP budget holding. Gac San. 1991;5:276–283. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(91)71082-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Navarro V. The relevance of the US: experience to the reforms in the British National Health Service: the case of general practitioner fund holding. Internat J Health Services. 1991;21:381–397. doi: 10.2190/VK9M-FJ96-C4PD-Y085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Atencion Primaria are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES