EBHC Library > Methodology of Research > Clinical Research > Peer Review

Page last update: 29/09/2012

Bibliographic Resources	Web Resources
Books Monographs Journals Newsletters Series of Articles Articles	Databases Organizations Projects Tools Directories

• Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2003
• Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to survive peer review. A survival guide for healthcare professionals. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2002

• General
  • Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006;295:1675-80.
  • Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, et al. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006;295:314-7.
  • Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673
    • Davidoff F. Improving peer review: who's responsible? BMJ 2004;328:657-8
    • Schroter S, Groves T. BMJ training for peer reviewers BMJ 2004;328:658
  • Laine C, Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:1038-40.
  • Parrish DM, Bruns DE. US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process. JAMA 2002;287:2839-41
  • x
  • Bacchetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ 2002;324:1271-3
  • Stephenson J. Biomedical journals ponder the failures and remedies of peer review. JAMA 2001;286:2931-2
  • Buchman AL. Who is a peer? Ann Intern Med 2001;134:346-7
  • Campion EW, Curfman GD, Drazen JM. Tracking the peer-review process. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1485-6
  • Sandra Goldbeck-Wood. Evidence on peer reviewscientific quality control or smokescreen?  BMJ 1999;318: 44-45
  • Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999;318:4-5.
  • Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998;280:246-7.
  • Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden MB.The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study. Lancet 1998 Aug 8;352:441-5
  • Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 1998;352:301-5
  • Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:66-8
• Open Access Peer Review
  • Tamber PS, Godlee F, Newmark P. Open access to peer-reviewed research: making it happen. Lancet 2003;362:1575-7.
  • van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7.
• International Congresses on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication
  • Home page
  • First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago, 1989
    • JAMA Theme Issue
    • Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago, Ill: Council of Biology Editors Inc; 1991.
  • Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago, 1993
    • JAMA Theme Issue
  • Third International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Prague, 1997
    • JAMA Theme Issue
  • Fourth International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Barcelona, 2001
    • JAMA Theme Issue
  • Fiftht International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Chicago, 2005

• Training package for BMJ peer reviewers