x

¿Aún no está registrado?

Cree su cuenta. Regístrese en Elsevier y obtendrá: información relevante, máxima actualización y promociones exclusivas.

Registrarme ahora
Solicitud de permisos - Ayuda - - Regístrese - Teléfono 902 888 740
Buscar en

FI 2016

1,042
© Thomson Reuters, Journal Citation Reports, 2016

Indexada en:

Index Medicus/Medline, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, IBECS, IME, SCOPUS, Medes, Science Citation Index Expanded.

Métricas

  • Factor de Impacto: 1,042 (2016)
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR):0,24
  • Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):0,583

© Thomson Reuters, Journal Citation Reports, 2016

Aten Primaria 2001;27:432-9 - DOI: 10.1016/S0212-6567(01)78827-0
La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas
J. Gérvas, M. Pérez Fernández
Equipo CESCA. Madrid
El Texto completo solo 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
3.
J.C. Burnham
The evolution of editorial per review
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1323-1329
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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199906103402309
5.
F.J. Ingelfinger
Peer review in biomedical publication
Am J Med, 56 (1974), pp. 686-692
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
10.
J. Jiménez Villa
La calidad de las publicaciones
Aten Primaria, 17 (1996), pp. 367-368
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
14.
A. Fabiato
Anonymity of reviewers
Cardiovasc Res, 28 (1994), pp. 1134-1139
15.
R. Taylor
NIH panel to monitor peer review in action
Nature, 375 (1995), pp. 438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/375438b0
16.
M.k. Cho,A.C. Justice,M.A. Winker,J.A. Berlin,J.F. Waeckerle,M.L. Callaham
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
25.
R. Smith
Opening up BMJ peer review
BMJ, 318 (1999), pp. 4-5
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
28.
R.E. LaPorte,E. Marler,S. Akazawa,F. Sauer,C. Gamboa,C. Shenton
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
40.
D. Rennie,E. Knoll
Investigating peer review
Ann Intern Med, 109 (1988), pp. 181
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?
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»
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.