Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?
175
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2010
Jahr
Abstract
Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 88.941 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.006 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.697 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.339 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.004 Zit.