, OrCID iDs Ketevan Glonti
,
A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals, BMJ Open, vol.7, p.17468, 2017. ,
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement, BMC Med, vol.15, p.167, 2017. ,
A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals, BMC Med, vol.17, p.118, 2019. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-02292376
The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by Journal editors, BMC Med, vol.13, p.1, 2015. ,
Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals, Croat Med J, vol.53, pp.386-395, 2012. ,
Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing, Soc Sci Med, vol.72, pp.1056-63, 2011. ,
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups, Int J Qual Health Care, vol.19, pp.349-57, 2007. ,
Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study, BMJ Open, vol.8, p.20568, 2018. ,
Qualitative research and evaluation methods, pp.209-339, 2002. ,
An innovative and ambitious joint doctoral training programme ,
The eighth international Congress on peer review and biomedical publication: a call for research, JAMA, vol.313, pp.2031-2033, 2015. ,
Sample size in qualitative research, Res Nurs Health, vol.18, pp.179-83, 1995. ,
Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual Res Psychol, vol.3, pp.77-101, 2006. ,
How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability, Field Methods, vol.18, pp.59-82, 2006. ,
Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the Trustworthiness criteria, Int J Qual Methods, vol.16, 2017. ,
Naturalistic inquiry, pp.438-447, 1985. ,
What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol.7, p.44, 2007. ,
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone, Brain, vol.123, pp.1964-1973, 2000. ,
Bias in peer review, J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, vol.64, pp.2-17, 2013. ,
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical Journal: are they reliable and do editors care?, PLoS One, vol.5, p.10072, 2010. ,
Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals, PLoS One, vol.7, p.35621, 2012. ,
The relationship of previous training and experience of Journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality, PLoS Med, vol.4, p.40, 2007. ,
Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of roentgenology, American Journal of Roentgenology, vol.184, pp.1731-1736, 2005. ,
, on October 13, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright, 2019.
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews, J Gen Intern Med, vol.8, pp.422-430, 1993. ,
Reviewer status and review quality, N Engl J Med, vol.312, pp.658-667, 1985. ,
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical, Journal, vol.280, 1998. ,
Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol.19, p.48, 2019. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-02309545
Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET peer review mentoring program, RMD Open, vol.4, p.619, 2018. ,
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMC Med, vol.14, p.85, 2016. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-01332189
Promote scientific integrity via Journal peer review data, Science, vol.357, pp.256-263, 2017. ,
Attitudes of Referees in a multidisciplinary Journal: an empirical analysis, J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, vol.68, pp.1763-71, 2017. ,
Peer review motivation frames: a qualitative approach, Eur Manage J, vol.34, pp.69-79, 2016. ,
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey, J Epidemiol Community Health, vol.61, pp.9-12, 2007. ,
Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses, Learned Publishing, vol.29, pp.5-7, 2016. ,
Academic promotion criteria research scientist grades 7-9 ,
Peer review is not just quality control, it is part of the social infrastructure of research. impact of social sciences, 2019. ,
Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure, PLoS Biol, vol.16, p.2004089, 2018. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01771422