Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2087035400> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 45 of
45
with 100 items per page.
- W2087035400 endingPage "1283" @default.
- W2087035400 startingPage "1283a" @default.
- W2087035400 abstract "In this week's BMJ, Peter Bacchetti complains about another side of peer review: finding errors when they are not there (p 1271). All those involved in peer review certainly know about the shortcomings of the process, but I am not so sure if the majority of readers are so aware of these shortcomings. Often I hear such questions as “hasn't this article gone through peer review?”A visit to www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/peerhome.htm might serve as an eye opener. The Journal of the American Medical Association and the BMJ Publishing Group organise a conference on peer review every four years—it's a bit like a biomedical publishing version of the Olympic Games. Unfortunately, the conference website is not very entertaining—the pages mainly consist of text as the topic doesn't lend itself to interactivity. You might find, however, interesting information on what it could mean to be a second, third, or last author, or what makes a good referee.The peer review process appears to be a threatening and rather intangible animal to many journal contributors. Accordingly, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, www.publicationethics.org.uk) states that all scientific journals should be explicit about their peer review process.Now comes the interactive part: try to find a description of the peer review process of your favourite journals. I am not sure whether this will come as a surprise but if most of the major general and specialist journals mention their peer review process at all, they do so only in vague terms. Those that are explicit about it include The Annals of Internal Medicine (www.annals.org/shared/author_info.html) and the Canadian Medical Association Journal (www.cmaj.ca/misc/ifora.shtml#rev), not forgetting the BMJ (bmj.com/advice/30.html). Funding bodies such as the Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.uk/index/funding/funding-specific_schemes/funding-assessment_process.htm) and the United States' National Institutes of Health (grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm) provide even more detailed information.After struggling your way through all this information it still might not be terribly clear what will actually happen to your paper. In the case of open peer review, you know at least afterwards what happened to your paper, but there are certainly other good reasons for opening the process (bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4)." @default.
- W2087035400 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2087035400 creator A5030282743 @default.
- W2087035400 date "2002-05-25" @default.
- W2087035400 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W2087035400 title "Website of the week: Peer review" @default.
- W2087035400 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1283/a" @default.
- W2087035400 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/1123245" @default.
- W2087035400 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
- W2087035400 type Work @default.
- W2087035400 sameAs 2087035400 @default.
- W2087035400 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2087035400 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2087035400 hasAuthorship W2087035400A5030282743 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConceptScore W2087035400C108827166 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConceptScore W2087035400C136764020 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConceptScore W2087035400C2522767166 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConceptScore W2087035400C41008148 @default.
- W2087035400 hasConceptScore W2087035400C71924100 @default.
- W2087035400 hasIssue "7348" @default.
- W2087035400 hasLocation W20870354001 @default.
- W2087035400 hasOpenAccess W2087035400 @default.
- W2087035400 hasPrimaryLocation W20870354001 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W1506282065 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W1507112395 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W1996408511 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W2323581027 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W2351790455 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W2570974996 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W2752793062 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W2087035400 hasRelatedWork W4247880953 @default.
- W2087035400 hasVolume "324" @default.
- W2087035400 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2087035400 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2087035400 magId "2087035400" @default.
- W2087035400 workType "article" @default.