Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models
ObjectivesTo assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ open 2015-09, Vol.5 (9), p.e008707-e008707 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e008707 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | e008707 |
| container_title | BMJ open |
| container_volume | 5 |
| creator | Kowalczuk, Maria K Dudbridge, Frank Nanda, Shreeya Harriman, Stephanie L Patel, Jigisha Moylan, Elizabeth C |
| description | ObjectivesTo assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.SettingBioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.SampleTwo hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.ResultsFor each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4593157</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4306343201</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b538t-bd6538a30a0c056943196ff17315262cd968114cb43a7466f554867fa1f0ee563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUk1v1DAQtRCIVqW_AAlZ4sIlxY4_klyQUAW0UiUkBGfLSSa7XiV2ajuL9h_xM5lot1WBCz54PJr3nsfjR8hrzq44F_p9O-3CDL4oGVcFY3XFqmfkvGRSFpop9fzJ-YxcprRjuKRqlCpfkrNSy1LUSp2TX98gx5Bm6LLbA7XejofkEg0DzVug94sdXT6saYQ5xJxoe6B2ydsQi7RsNpAy9EjrqQ---KcQYe_gJ8REnae7sETUR_EZos3Ob2jwa4JbpAnzEYp2dCg2A8QTmU6hhzG9Ii8G5MLlKV6QH58_fb--Ke6-frm9_nhXtErUuWh7jdEKZlnHlG6k4I0eBl4Jrkpddn2ja85l10phK6n1oJSsdTVYPjAApcUF-XDUnZd2gr4Dn6MdzRzdZOPBBOvMnxXvtmYT9gaHi3dUKPDuJBDD_YJjMJNLHYyj9RCWZHjF64ZJbAihb_-CPozI8FqzmsuGrR2JI6rDj0oRhsdmODOrGczJDGY1gzmaAVlvnr7jkfPw9Qi4OgKQ_V-KvwEAvMS4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1860814906</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>British Medical Journal Open Access Journals</source><creator>Kowalczuk, Maria K ; Dudbridge, Frank ; Nanda, Shreeya ; Harriman, Stephanie L ; Patel, Jigisha ; Moylan, Elizabeth C</creator><creatorcontrib>Kowalczuk, Maria K ; Dudbridge, Frank ; Nanda, Shreeya ; Harriman, Stephanie L ; Patel, Jigisha ; Moylan, Elizabeth C</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectivesTo assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.SettingBioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.SampleTwo hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.ResultsFor each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.ConclusionsReviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26423855</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Authorship ; Biology ; Biomedical Research ; Communication ; CPAs ; Editorial Policies ; Humans ; Impact factors ; Infectious diseases ; Inflammation ; Judgment ; Peer review ; Peer Review - methods ; Peer Review - standards ; Periodicals as Topic ; Personal Satisfaction ; Publishing ; Quality ; Research Report - standards ; Retrospective Studies ; Single-Blind Method ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2015-09, Vol.5 (9), p.e008707-e008707</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b538t-bd6538a30a0c056943196ff17315262cd968114cb43a7466f554867fa1f0ee563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b538t-bd6538a30a0c056943196ff17315262cd968114cb43a7466f554867fa1f0ee563</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4651-4969 ; 0000-0002-4017-9055 ; 0000-0002-8817-8908 ; 0000-0001-9156-7130 ; 0000-0001-5374-7464</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e008707.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e008707.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27528,27529,27903,27904,53769,53771,77347,77378</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26423855$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kowalczuk, Maria K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dudbridge, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nanda, Shreeya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harriman, Stephanie L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Jigisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moylan, Elizabeth C</creatorcontrib><title>Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models</title><title>BMJ open</title><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><description>ObjectivesTo assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.SettingBioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.SampleTwo hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.ResultsFor each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.ConclusionsReviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Authorship</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>CPAs</subject><subject>Editorial Policies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Impact factors</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Inflammation</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Peer Review - methods</subject><subject>Peer Review - standards</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic</subject><subject>Personal Satisfaction</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Research Report - standards</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUk1v1DAQtRCIVqW_AAlZ4sIlxY4_klyQUAW0UiUkBGfLSSa7XiV2ajuL9h_xM5lot1WBCz54PJr3nsfjR8hrzq44F_p9O-3CDL4oGVcFY3XFqmfkvGRSFpop9fzJ-YxcprRjuKRqlCpfkrNSy1LUSp2TX98gx5Bm6LLbA7XejofkEg0DzVug94sdXT6saYQ5xJxoe6B2ydsQi7RsNpAy9EjrqQ---KcQYe_gJ8REnae7sETUR_EZos3Ob2jwa4JbpAnzEYp2dCg2A8QTmU6hhzG9Ii8G5MLlKV6QH58_fb--Ke6-frm9_nhXtErUuWh7jdEKZlnHlG6k4I0eBl4Jrkpddn2ja85l10phK6n1oJSsdTVYPjAApcUF-XDUnZd2gr4Dn6MdzRzdZOPBBOvMnxXvtmYT9gaHi3dUKPDuJBDD_YJjMJNLHYyj9RCWZHjF64ZJbAihb_-CPozI8FqzmsuGrR2JI6rDj0oRhsdmODOrGczJDGY1gzmaAVlvnr7jkfPw9Qi4OgKQ_V-KvwEAvMS4</recordid><startdate>20150929</startdate><enddate>20150929</enddate><creator>Kowalczuk, Maria K</creator><creator>Dudbridge, Frank</creator><creator>Nanda, Shreeya</creator><creator>Harriman, Stephanie L</creator><creator>Patel, Jigisha</creator><creator>Moylan, Elizabeth C</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4651-4969</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4017-9055</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8817-8908</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9156-7130</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-7464</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20150929</creationdate><title>Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models</title><author>Kowalczuk, Maria K ; Dudbridge, Frank ; Nanda, Shreeya ; Harriman, Stephanie L ; Patel, Jigisha ; Moylan, Elizabeth C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b538t-bd6538a30a0c056943196ff17315262cd968114cb43a7466f554867fa1f0ee563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Authorship</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>CPAs</topic><topic>Editorial Policies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Impact factors</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Inflammation</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Peer Review - methods</topic><topic>Peer Review - standards</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic</topic><topic>Personal Satisfaction</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Research Report - standards</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kowalczuk, Maria K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dudbridge, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nanda, Shreeya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harriman, Stephanie L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Jigisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moylan, Elizabeth C</creatorcontrib><collection>British Medical Journal Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kowalczuk, Maria K</au><au>Dudbridge, Frank</au><au>Nanda, Shreeya</au><au>Harriman, Stephanie L</au><au>Patel, Jigisha</au><au>Moylan, Elizabeth C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><date>2015-09-29</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e008707</spage><epage>e008707</epage><pages>e008707-e008707</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>ObjectivesTo assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.SettingBioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.SampleTwo hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.ResultsFor each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.ConclusionsReviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>26423855</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4651-4969</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4017-9055</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8817-8908</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9156-7130</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-7464</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2044-6055 |
| ispartof | BMJ open, 2015-09, Vol.5 (9), p.e008707-e008707 |
| issn | 2044-6055 2044-6055 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4593157 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; British Medical Journal Open Access Journals |
| subjects | Agreements Authorship Biology Biomedical Research Communication CPAs Editorial Policies Humans Impact factors Infectious diseases Inflammation Judgment Peer review Peer Review - methods Peer Review - standards Periodicals as Topic Personal Satisfaction Publishing Quality Research Report - standards Retrospective Studies Single-Blind Method Studies Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T02%3A02%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Retrospective%20analysis%20of%20the%20quality%20of%20reports%20by%20author-suggested%20and%20non-author-suggested%20reviewers%20in%20journals%20operating%20on%20open%20or%20single-blind%20peer%20review%20models&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Kowalczuk,%20Maria%20K&rft.date=2015-09-29&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e008707&rft.epage=e008707&rft.pages=e008707-e008707&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E4306343201%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1860814906&rft_id=info:pmid/26423855&rfr_iscdi=true |