Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review
- 1 March 1999
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Elsevier BV in Complementary Therapies in Medicine
- Vol. 7 (1), 19-23
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0965-2299(99)80054-5
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensableJAMA, 1994
- More peering into editorial peer reviewJAMA, 1993
- Drawbacks of peer reviewNature, 1993
- Editorial peer review: Let us put it on trialControlled Clinical Trials, 1992
- Reviewer BiasAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1992
- Qualitätssicherung bei PublikationenDeutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 1992
- An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical JournalJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1990
- Peer Review Comes Under Peer ReviewScience, 1989
- Does it work efficiently?Nature, 1989
- The Reporting of Statistical Techniques in Otolaryngology JournalsJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 1987