2002
Effects of Editorial Peer Review
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
291
37
24
3
Citation Types
4
195
0
4
Year Published
2000
2026
Publication Types
Select...
304
22
18
8
Relationship
4
348
Authors
Journals
Cited by 351 publications
(203 citation statements)
References 27 publications
4
195
0
4
“…Our typology of these criteria is consistent with previous data [5], [16], [24]. The main differences across calls for proposals related to the definitions and weighting of the criteria.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Our typology of these criteria is consistent with previous data [5], [16], [24]. The main differences across calls for proposals related to the definitions and weighting of the criteria.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Although participants were satisfied with the quality of the computer program (interface, readability of the text, and information delivered), training with the ICLS did not have a significant and relevant impact in terms of rate of correct answers compared with a criterion standard. These results highlight the difficulties in training and are consistent with systematic reviews showing that for peer review, referees' training did not improve the quality of the review [24,25]. However, in this trial we cannot determine whether the problem was related to the quality instrument or to the teaching tool.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Consistent with the literature, improvements in completeness and spin with publication were modest, suggesting that the peer-review process and journal editing were limited in improving reporting quality. However, the data demonstrate that a gap exists between preprint abstracts eventually published and those that remain unpublished in terms of completeness and spin, potentially indicating selection for desirable qualities in the journal review process.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
