Resources

ORI Introduction to RCR: Chapter 10. Peer Review    

Table of Contents | Previous | Next
 
Policies, Reports, and Policy Statements
 
National Institutes of Health. NIH Guide – Objectivity in Research, Bethesda, MD: NIH, 1995. (Link)
 
University of Michigan Medical School. Guidelines for the Responsible Conduct of Research: Right and Responsibilities of Peer Review, Ann Arbor, MI: UM, 1999. (Link)
 
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, 2001. (Link)
 
General Information Web Sites
 
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Home Page, 2003. (Link)
 
Office of Extramural Research. National Institutes of Health. OER: Peer Review Policy and Issues, 2003.(Link)
 
Additional Reading
 
Armstrong, JS. “Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation,” Science and Engineering Ethics 3, 1 (1997): 63-84.
 
Black, N, van Rooyen, S, Godlee, F, Smith, R, Evans, S. “What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 231-233.
 
Callaham, ML, Baxt, WG, Waeckerle, JF, Wears, RL. “Reliability of Editors’ Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 229-231.
 
Callaham, ML, Wears, RL, Weber, EJ, Barton, C, Young, G. “Positive-outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 254-7.
 
Cho, MK, Justice, AC, Winker, MA, Berlin, JA, Waeckerle, JF, Callaham, ML, Rennie, D. “Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking Success?” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 243-245.
 
Dickersin, K. “How Important is Publication Bias? A Synthesis of Available Data,” AIDS Education and Prevention 9, 1 Suppl (1997): 15-21.
 
Dickersin, K, Fredman, L, Flegal, KM, Scott, JD, Crawley, B. “Is There a Sex Bias in Choosing Editors? Epidemiology Journals as an Example,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 260-264.
 
Evans, A, McNutt, R, Fletcher, S, Fletcher, R. “The Characteristics of Peer Reviewers Who Produce Good-quality Reviews,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 8, August 8 (1993): 422-428.
 
Fletcher, RH, Fletcher, SW. “Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review,” Science and Engineering Ethics 3, 1 (1997): 35-50.
 
Godlee, F, Gale, CR, Martyn, CN. “Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 237-240.
 
Jadad, AR, Cook, DJ, Jones, A, Klassen, TP, Tugwell, P, Moher, M, and Moher, D. “Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Comparison of Cochrane Reviews with Articles Published in Paper-Based Journals.” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 278-280.
 
Jefferson, T. Peer Review in the Health Sciences, London: British Medical Journal Books, 1999.
 
Justice, AC, Cho, MK, Winker, MA, Berlin, JA, Rennie, D. “Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 240-242.
 
Link, AM. “US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 246-247.
 
Pitkin, RM, Branagan, MA, Burmeister, LF. “Effectiveness of a Journal Intervention to Improve Abstract Quality,” Journal of the American Medical Association 283, 4 (2000): 481.
 
van Rooyen, S, Godlee, F, Evans, S, Black, N, Smith, R. “Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial,” British Medical Journal 318, 7175 (1999): 23-27.
 
van Rooyen, S, Godlee, F, Evans, S, Smith, R, Black, N. “Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 3 (1998): 234-237.
 
———. “Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 14, 10 (1999):

Source URL: https://ori.hhs.gov/resources-2