Peer Review: Always Room for Improvement
- PMID: 31135719
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003296
Peer Review: Always Room for Improvement
Comment on
-
Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1081-1083. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. PMID: 31135720
References
-
- Tvina A, Spellecy R, Palatnik A. Bias in the peer review process: can we do better? Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:1081–83.
-
- McGillivray B, De Ranieri E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Res Integr Peer Rev 2018;3:5.
-
- Chung K, Shauver M, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich R. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The effect of blinding on review quality. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;136:1369–77.
-
- Chescheir NC. Increasing transparency around peer review and research. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:1–2.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources