Información del artículo
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Biblografía
[1.]
Committee on the Conduct of Science.
On being a scientist.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 86 (1989), pp. 9053-9074
[2.]
F. Rodríguez Artalejo.
Ocultar la identidad de los autores y evaluadores de artículos.
Gac Sanit, 10 (1996), pp. 159-160
[4.]
A.S. Relman.
The NIH «E-Biomed» proposal. A potential threat to the evaluation and orderly dissemination of new clinical studies.
N Engl J Med, 340 (1999), pp. 1828-1829
[6.]
S. Harnard.
Peer commentary on peer review.
Behav Brain Sciences, 5 (1982), pp. 185-186
[7.]
D.P. Peters, S.J. Ceci.
Peer-review practices of psychological journals. The fate of published articles, submitted again.
Behav Brain Sciences, 5 (1982), pp. 187-255
[8.]
J.P. Kassirer, E.W. Campion.
Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 96-97
[9.]
J.P.E.N. Pierie, H.C. Walvoort, J.P.M. Overbeke.
Readers’ evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.
Lancet, 348 (1996), pp. 1480-1483
[11.]
C. Bingham.
Peer review on the Internet: a better class of conversation.
Lancet, 351 (1998), pp. 10-14
[12.]
A.J. Reid.
Canadian Family Physiscian ’s peer reviewers. Unsung heros.
Can Fam Physician, 44 (1998), pp. 13-14
[13.]
C.M. Bingham, G. Higgins, R. Coleman, M.B.V.D Weyden.
The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
Lancet, 352 (1998), pp. 441-445
[15.]
R. Taylor.
NIH panel to monitor peer review in action.
Nature, 375 (1995), pp. 438
[16.]
M.k. Cho, A.C. Justice, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, J.F. Waeckerle, M.L. Callaham, et al.
Masking author identity in peer review What factors influence masking success?.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 243-245
[17.]
A. Yankauer.
Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1338-1340
[18.]
C.M. Olsen.
Peer review of the biomedical literature.
Am J Emerg Med, 8 (1990), pp. 356-358
[19.]
F. Rodríguez Artalejo.
Prevención de enfermedades vasculares en las mujeres.
Aten Primaria, 22 (1998), pp. 200-295
[20.]
D.B. Petitti.
Hormone replacement therapy and heart disease prevention. Experimentation trumps observation.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 650-652
[21.]
R. Smith.
Peer review: reform or revolution. Time to open up the black box of peer review.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 759-760
[22.]
R. Smith.
Promoting research into peer review. An invitation to join it.
BMJ, 309 (1994), pp. 143-144
[23.]
D. Neuhauser.
Peer review and the research commons. A problem of success.
Med Care, 35 (1997), pp. 301-302
[24.]
K.R. Anderson, J.F. Lucey.
Una nueva capacidad: la revisión post-publicación por expertos para Pediatrics.
Pediatrics (ed. esp.), 48 (1999), pp. 1
[26.]
A. Plasència.
Gaceta Sanitaria: un mensajero en la casa común de la salud pública.
Gac Sanit, 13 (1999), pp. 4-5
[27.]
R. Horton.
Luck, lotteries and loopholes of grant review.
Lancet, 348 (1996), pp. 1255-1256
[28.]
R.E. LaPorte, E. Marler, S. Akazawa, F. Sauer, C. Gamboa, C. Shenton, et al.
The death of biomedical journals.
BMJ, 310 (1995), pp. 1387-1390
[29.]
B.P. Squires.
Peer review under scrutiny. Report on the third International Congress in Prague, 1997.
Can Fam Physician, 44 (1998), pp. 15-16
[30.]
M.C. Klein.
Studying episotomy: when beliefs conflict with science.
J Fam Pract, 41 (1995), pp. 483-488
[31.]
M. Abby, M.D. Massey, S. Galandiuk, H.C. Polk.
Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 105-107
[32.]
J. Roberts, R.H. Fletcher, S.W. Fletcher.
Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 119-121
[33.]
A.C. Justice, J.A. Berlin, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher, S.N. Goodman.
Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 117-119
[34.]
F. Godlee, C.R. Gale, C.N. Martyn.
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 237-240
[35.]
Fraud and misconduct,
[36.]
O. Vilarroya.
Ética de la publicación médica.
Medicina clínica. Manual de estilo, pp. 117-135
[37.]
R. Smith.
Misconduct in research: editors respond. The Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) is formed.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 201-202
[38.]
D.F. Horrobin.
The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1438-1441
[39.]
J.F. Polak.
The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
Am J Roentgenol, 165 (1995), pp. 685-688
[41.]
D.A. Kronick.
Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.
JAMA, 262 (1990), pp. 1321-1322
[42.]
D.F. Horrobin.
Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?.
Lancet, 348 (1996), pp. 1293-1295
[43.]
A.T. Evans, R.A. McNutt, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher.
The characteristics of peer review who produce good quality reviews.
J Gen Intern Med, 8 (1993), pp. 422-428
[44.]
R.A. McNutt, A.T. Evans, R.H. Fletcher, S.W. Fletcher.
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1371-1376
[45.]
M. Fischer, S.B. Friedman, B. Strauss.
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 143-146
[46.]
S.V. Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith, N. Black.
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 234-237
[47.]
A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, D. Rennie.
PEER investigators. Does masking author identify improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trail.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 240-242
[48.]
M. O’Donnell.
Evidence-based illiteracy: time to rescue «the literature».
Lancet, 355 (2000), pp. 489-491
[49.]
V. Navarro.
La relevancia de la experiencia norteamericana en la reforma del sistema nacional de salud británico. El caso del GP budget holding.
Gac San, 5 (1991), pp. 276-283
[50.]
V. Navarro.
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, 21 (1991), pp. 381-397
Copyright © 2001. Elsevier España, S.L.. Todos los derechos reservados
