Buscar en
Atención Primaria
Toda la web
Inicio Atención Primaria La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas
Información de la revista
Vol. 27. Núm. 6.
Páginas 432-439 (Enero 2001)
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 27. Núm. 6.
Páginas 432-439 (Enero 2001)
Acceso a texto completo
La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas
J. Gérvas, M. Pérez Fernández
Equipo CESCA. Madrid
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Committee on the Conduct of Science.
On being a scientist.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 86 (1989), pp. 9053-9074
F. Rodríguez Artalejo.
Ocultar la identidad de los autores y evaluadores de artículos.
Gac Sanit, 10 (1996), pp. 159-160
J.C. Burnham.
The evolution of editorial per review.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1323-1329
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
F.J. Ingelfinger.
Peer review in biomedical publication.
Am J Med, 56 (1974), pp. 686-692
S. Harnard.
Peer commentary on peer review.
Behav Brain Sciences, 5 (1982), pp. 185-186
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
J.P. Kassirer, E.W. Campion.
Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 96-97
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
J. Jiménez Villa.
La calidad de las publicaciones.
Aten Primaria, 17 (1996), pp. 367-368
C. Bingham.
Peer review on the Internet: a better class of conversation.
Lancet, 351 (1998), pp. 10-14
A.J. Reid.
Canadian Family Physiscian ’s peer reviewers. Unsung heros.
Can Fam Physician, 44 (1998), pp. 13-14
C.M. Bingham, G. Higgins, R. Coleman, M.B.V.D Weyden.
The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
A. Fabiato.
Anonymity of reviewers.
Cardiovasc Res, 28 (1994), pp. 1134-1139
R. Taylor.
NIH panel to monitor peer review in action.
Nature, 375 (1995), pp. 438
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
A. Yankauer.
Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1338-1340
C.M. Olsen.
Peer review of the biomedical literature.
Am J Emerg Med, 8 (1990), pp. 356-358
F. Rodríguez Artalejo.
Prevención de enfermedades vasculares en las mujeres.
Aten Primaria, 22 (1998), pp. 200-295
D.B. Petitti.
Hormone replacement therapy and heart disease prevention. Experimentation trumps observation.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 650-652
R. Smith.
Peer review: reform or revolution. Time to open up the black box of peer review.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 759-760
R. Smith.
Promoting research into peer review. An invitation to join it.
BMJ, 309 (1994), pp. 143-144
D. Neuhauser.
Peer review and the research commons. A problem of success.
Med Care, 35 (1997), pp. 301-302
K.R. Anderson, J.F. Lucey.
Una nueva capacidad: la revisión post-publicación por expertos para Pediatrics.
Pediatrics (ed. esp.), 48 (1999), pp. 1
R. Smith.
Opening up BMJ peer review.
BMJ, 318 (1999), pp. 4-5
A. Plasència.
Gaceta Sanitaria: un mensajero en la casa común de la salud pública.
Gac Sanit, 13 (1999), pp. 4-5
R. Horton.
Luck, lotteries and loopholes of grant review.
Lancet, 348 (1996), pp. 1255-1256
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
B.P. Squires.
Peer review under scrutiny. Report on the third International Congress in Prague, 1997.
Can Fam Physician, 44 (1998), pp. 15-16
M.C. Klein.
Studying episotomy: when beliefs conflict with science.
J Fam Pract, 41 (1995), pp. 483-488
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
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
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
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
Fraud and misconduct,
O. Vilarroya.
Ética de la publicación médica.
Medicina clínica. Manual de estilo, pp. 117-135
R. Smith.
Misconduct in research: editors respond. The Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) is formed.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 201-202
D.F. Horrobin.
The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1438-1441
J.F. Polak.
The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
Am J Roentgenol, 165 (1995), pp. 685-688
D. Rennie, E. Knoll.
Investigating peer review.
Ann Intern Med, 109 (1988), pp. 181
D.A. Kronick.
Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.
JAMA, 262 (1990), pp. 1321-1322
D.F. Horrobin.
Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?.
Lancet, 348 (1996), pp. 1293-1295
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
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
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
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
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
M. O’Donnell.
Evidence-based illiteracy: time to rescue «the literature».
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
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
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos