Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  1998

• Venue

  Annals of Emergency Medicine

• Publication date

  1998-09-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-XPMID 9737492
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

  1996cited by this paper
• Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword

  1996cited by this paper
• Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.

  1994cited by this paper
• Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts.

  1994cited by this paper
• Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrument.

  1994cited by this paper
• Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature.

  1994cited by this paper
• Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language.

  1994cited by this paper
• Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review.

  1994cited by this paper
• Medical Uses of Statistics.

  1994cited by this paper
• An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

  1993cited by this paper
• Trust, but Verify: The Accuracy of References in Four Anesthesia Journals

  1992cited by this paper
• Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Special report.

  1991cited by this paper
• Propranolol in the Treatment of Acute Migraine Attacks

  1991cited by this paper
• The evolution of editorial peer review.

  1990cited by this paper
• Peer review in scientific journals--what good is it?

  1990cited by this paper
• Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts.

  1990cited by this paper
• Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication: The First International Congress

  1990cited by this paper
• Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem.

  1990cited by this paper
• Peer review in scientific journals--what good is it?

  1990cited by this paper
• Propranolol in Acute Migraine: A Controlled Study

  1990cited by this paper
• A Survey of Reference Accuracy in Five National Dental Journals

  1989cited by this paper
• How good is peer review?

  1989cited by this paper
• Investigating peer review.

  1988cited by this paper
• Accuracy of references in nursing journals.

  1987cited by this paper
• The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain

  1983cited by this paper
• Use of statistical analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine.

  1983cited by this paper
• Reference accuracy in articles accepted for publication in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

  1977cited by this paper
• Peer review in biomedical publication.

  1974cited by this paper

• Peer Reviewer Guidelines for the Journal of Trauma Nursing

  2025cites this paper
• Predicting Reviewers’ Decisions in Scientific Submissions through Linguistic Analysis

  2025cites this paper
• Can AI help authors prepare better risk science manuscripts?

  2025cites this paper
• Training the Gatekeepers of Research Integrity: Enhancing peer review and editorial Process excellence by simulated training programs

  2025cites this paper
• Exploring reviewer self-assessment in the context of academic peer review

  2025cites this paper
• Envisioning the Future of Peer Review: Investigating LLM-Assisted Reviewing Using ChatGPT as a Case Study

  2025cites this paper
• Five questions on improving diversity, equity and inclusion in UK bioscience research or “How can UK bioscience be changed so that those from marginalised groups can thrive?”

  2024cites this paper
• A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions

  2024cites this paper
• Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process

  2024cites this paper
• The importance of peer review skills: Value and necessity of training residents to ensure continued scientific excellence

  2024cites this paper
• Comparison of Best Paper Award selection between program committee members and attendees: Case of an international conference

  2024cites this paper
• The delicate nature of a constructive peer review: pearls from the editorial board

  2024cites this paper
• Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals

  2024cites this paper
• Embracing Visibility: Social Media Usage Among Families of Children With Cleft or Craniofacial Conditions

  2023cites this paper
• The Influence of the Reviewer in Academic Studies: May the Paper Make or Break?

  2023cites this paper
• ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewing

  2023cites this paper
• Testing for reviewer anchoring in peer review: A randomized controlled trial

  2023cites this paper
• Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training

  2023cites this paper
• Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it

  2023cites this paper
• Unveiling the Sentinels: Assessing AI Performance in Cybersecurity Peer Review

  2023cites this paper
• The future of academic publishing

  2023cites this paper
• An Overview of Challenges, Experiments, and Computational Solutions in Peer Review (Extended Version)

  2022cites this paper
• Recherche et dogmatisme : de l’improductivité du productivisme

  2022cites this paper
• Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?

  2022cites this paper
• How to Review a Paper.

  2022cites this paper
• Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer.

  2022cites this paper
• Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process

  2022cites this paper
• Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies.

  2021cites this paper
• A guide to peer reviewing medical education scholarship: Advice from editors of AEM Education and Training

  2021cites this paper
• Single Versus Double-Sided Hypotheses and Probabilities

  2021cites this paper
• A "Trojan Horse" in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals

  2020cites this paper
• ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

  2020cites this paper
• Videos in peer-review of Registered Reports

  2020cites this paper
• Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion

  2019cites this paper
• This article is included in the Science Policy gateway

  2019cites this paper
• Get Internal Peer Review

  2019cites this paper
• Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review

  2019cites this paper
• Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review

  2019cites this paper
• Effect of revealing authors’ conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial

  2019cites this paper
• 1 | THE PAR ADOX: HIGH RESE ARCH QUALIT Y BUT LOW POWER IN JUDGING REL ATIVE MERIT

  2019cites this paper
• Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing

  2019cites this paper
• Institutionalized Publishing Practices as a Barrier to Participation in the Global Management Discourse

  2018cites this paper
• Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials

  2018cites this paper
• Simulation Study on a New Peer Review Approach

  2018cites this paper
• Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process

  2017cites this paper
• 1 Guidelines for Science : Evidence and Checklists

  2017cites this paper
• On the Status and Future of Peer Review in Software Engineering

  2017cites this paper
• Quality of the Reviews Submitted by Attendees of a Workshop on Peer Review

  2017cites this paper
• Resident Research Tips: Surviving and Thriving Within the Peer Review Process

  2017cites this paper
• Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development

  2017cites this paper
• Improving peer review: What journals can do

  2017cites this paper
• Peer review in forensic science.

  2017cites this paper
• A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

  2017cites this paper
• Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

  2017cites this paper
• The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

  2016cites this paper
• Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  2016cites this paper
• Determinants of research quality in Italian universities: Evidence from the 2004 to 2010 evaluation exercise

  2016cites this paper
• Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach

  2016cites this paper
• A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.

  2015cites this paper
• ‘Scholarly peer reviewing’: The art, its joys and woes

  2015cites this paper
• Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation

  2015cites this paper
• The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors

  2015cites this paper
• Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise

  2015cites this paper
• Successful authors’ views on the editorial review processes of accounting journals

  2015cites this paper
• Quo vadis universitas

  2015cites this paper
• Understanding the selection processes of public research projects in agriculture: The role of scientific merit

  2015cites this paper
• La valutazione dei pari nelle scienze sociali e politiche. la lezione della VQR 2004-2010

  2015cites this paper
• Normative model of peer review - Qualitative assessment

  2015cites this paper
• Integrative Propositional Analysis: A New Quantitative Method for Evaluating Theories in Psychology

  2015cites this paper
• Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.

  2015cites this paper
• For what it's worth - the open peer review landscape

  2015cites this paper
• Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.

  2015cites this paper
• Agreement between thoracic reviewers for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.

  2014cites this paper
• Predatory Publishing, Questionable Peer Review, and Fraudulent Conferences

  2014cites this paper
• Give Until It Hurts

  2014cites this paper
• Reviewer Index: A New Proposal Of Rewarding The Reviewer

  2013cites this paper
• Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol)

  2013cites this paper
• How to write an academic abstract

  2013cites this paper
• The Importance of Peer Review

  2013cites this paper
• Note: issues of importance, timing and method relating to peer review of journal manuscripts

  2013cites this paper
• The importance of peer review.

  2013cites this paper
• How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.

  2013cites this paper
• Should Authors Submit Previous Peer-Review Reports When Submitting Research Papers? Views of General Medical Journal Editors

  2013cites this paper
• Comment écrire un abstract académique ?

  2013cites this paper
• Should peer reviewers be suggested by authors

  2012cites this paper
• How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!

  2012cites this paper
• Theoretical and technological building blocks for an innovation accelerator

  2012cites this paper
• Revisiting Peer Review: Is it Time for you to be a Peer Reviewer?

  2012cites this paper
• Manipular Google Scholar Citations y Google Scholar Metrics: simple, sencillo y tentador

  2012cites this paper
• Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting

  2012cites this paper
• Perceptions of Conflict of Interest Disclosures among Peer Reviewers

  2011cites this paper
• Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers.

  2011cites this paper
• Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel

  2011cites this paper
• Scientific peer review

  2011cites this paper
• Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)

  2011cites this paper
• The Wisdom of Crowds, the Madness of Crowds: Rethinking Peer Review in the Web Era

  2011cites this paper
• The “peer-review” process in biomedical journals: characteristics of “Elite” reviewers

  2010cites this paper
• A Step by Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Manuscript

  2010cites this paper
• Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.

  2010cites this paper
• REVIEW QUALITY MANAGEMENT - APPLYING ISO 9000 STANDARDS ON THE REVIEW PROCEDURE OF THE DESIGN SOCIETY

  2010cites this paper