Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1321-1323, 1990. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002
Peer review: reform or revolution?, BMJ, vol.315, issue.7111, pp.759-60, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.759
Editorial peer review: Let us put it on trial, Controlled Clinical Trials, vol.13, issue.6, pp.443-448, 1992. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0197-2456(92)90201-A
Editorial peer review: its development and rationale, Peer review in health sciences, pp.1-13, 2003. ,
Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2786-90, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol.99, issue.4, pp.178-82, 2006. ,
DOI : 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance, Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol.32, issue.3, pp.310-317, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X
Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?, PLoS ONE, vol.2, issue.6, p.10072, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.t001
Problems with peer review, BMJ, vol.340, issue.mar15 1, p.1409, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.c1409
Re-reviewing Peer Review, Science Signaling, vol.2, issue.85, p.11, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1126/scisignal.285eg11
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system, BMC Medicine, vol.494, issue.1, p.179, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1038/494161a
Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals, Trials, vol.11, issue.1, p.77, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32
Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes, JAMA, vol.303, issue.20, pp.2058-64, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.2010.651
Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study, BMJ, vol.349, issue.jul01 8, p.4145, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.g4145
Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy, New England Journal of Medicine, vol.358, issue.3, pp.252-60, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1056/NEJMsa065779
Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications, BMJ, vol.326, issue.7400, pp.1171-1174, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171
Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention, BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol.62, issue.9, p.85, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.008
Effects of Editorial Peer Review, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2784-2790, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784
A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.68, issue.3, pp.257-65, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024
Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials, Clinical Trials, vol.40, issue.2, pp.125-164, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1177/1740774507077849
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol.2, p.16, 2007. ,
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011. ,
Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol.121, issue.1, pp.11-21, 1994. ,
DOI : 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol.134, issue.8, pp.663-672, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.52, issue.7, pp.625-634, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00047-5
Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.229-260, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.229
What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.231-234, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.231
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ, vol.343, issue.oct18 2, p.5928, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.d5928
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011. ,
DigitizeIt software v2, 2016. ,
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011. ,
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011. ,
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, vol.328, issue.7441, p.673, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE
Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2781-2784, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2781
Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers, Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol.40, issue.3, pp.323-331, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1067/mem.2002.127121
Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial, BMC Medical Education, vol.8, issue.1, p.83, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1186/1471-2288-8-3
Efecto de la revisi??n estad??stica en la calidad de los manuscritos publicados en MEDICINA CL??NICA: estudio aleatorizado, Medicina Cl??nica, vol.121, issue.18, pp.690-694, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0025-7753(03)74064-0
Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial, PLoS ONE, vol.19, issue.5, p.332, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0000332.s002
Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial, BMJ, vol.343, issue.nov22 2, p.6783, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.d6783
Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?, Natl Med J India, vol.12, issue.5, pp.210-213, 1999. ,
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial, BMJ, vol.318, issue.7175, pp.23-30, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, vol.341, issue.nov16 2, p.5729, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.c5729
Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in, Ugeskrift for Laeger " . Dan Med, vol.59, issue.8, p.4479, 2012. ,
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial, The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol.176, issue.1, pp.47-51, 2000. ,
DOI : 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47
Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.237-277, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.237
Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.234-241, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.234
Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study, British Journal of Dermatology, vol.8, issue.3, pp.563-570, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x
The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.272, issue.2, pp.143-149, 1994. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019
Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.240-243, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.240
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1371-1377, 1990. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.263.10.1371
Identifying Manuscript Reviewers, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2795-2801, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2795
Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: A randomized trial, Annals of Neurology, vol.59, issue.4, pp.10-12, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1002/ana.21150
Calling Medical Care Reviewers First A Randomized Trial, Medical Care, vol.27, issue.6, pp.664-670, 1989. ,
DOI : 10.1097/00005650-198906000-00009
The International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.261, issue.5, p.749, 1989. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1989.03420050099049
The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors, BMC Medicine, vol.26, issue.1, p.158, 2015. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.008