2023, Number 3
Next >>
Sal Jal 2023; 10 (3)
On several issues about the peer review process of the scientific manuscripts
Nava-Zavala AH
Language: Spanish
References: 5
Page: 133-133
PDF size: 60.85 Kb.
REFERENCES
Fraser S. Opportunities to enhance peer review. Can Fam Physician. 2022;68(9):632. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6809632.
Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1.
Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25(3):227-243.
Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The effect of blinding on review quality. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):1369-1377. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820.
Rees L, Flynn J. Supportive peer review: Why and how to constructively review a paper. Pediatr Nephrol. 2022;37(8):1701-1703. doi: 10.1007/s00467-022-05535-z.
Full text
10.35366/113301