[1] |
Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G , et al. Bias in peer review[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013,64(1):2-17.
doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
URL
|
[2] |
Cox D, Gleser L, Perlman M , et al. Report of the ad hoc committee of double-blind refereeing[J]. Statistical Science, 1993,8(3):310-317.
doi: 10.1214/ss/1177010904
URL
|
[3] |
Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA , et al. Who reviews the reviewers?Feasibility of using a fictitiousmanuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance[J]. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1998,32(3):310-317.
doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X
URL
pmid: 3
|
[4] |
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I . The peer-review scam[J]. Nature, 2014,515:480-482.
doi: 10.1038/515480a
URL
|
[5] |
M cCormack N . Peer review and legal publishing:what law librarians need to know about open, single-blind, and doubleblind review ing[J]. Law Library Journal, 2009,101(1):59-70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01144.x
URL
|
[6] |
Mulligan A . Quality,certification and peer review[J]. Information Services&Use, 2008,28(3-4):197-214.
doi: 10.3233/ISU-2008-0582
URL
|
[7] |
Ware M . Peer review:recent experience and future directions[J]. New Review of Information Networking, 2011,16(1):23-53.
doi: 10.1080/13614576.2011.566812
URL
|
[8] |
Shotton D . The five stars of online journal articles-a framework for article evaluation[J/OL].D -Lib Magazine, 2012,18(1/2).doi: 10.1045/january2012-shotton.http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january12/shotton/01shotton.html.
URL
|
[9] |
Ford E. Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature[J].Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 2013,44(4):311-326.
doi: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
URL
|
[10] |
Open access copyright policy[EB/OL].[2015-11-01].https://peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/.
|
[11] |
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Sm ith R . Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a random ised trial[J]. BMJ, 1999,318:23-27.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
URL
|
[12] |
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S , et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review:a randomised trial[J]. JAMA, 1998,280:234-237.
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x
URL
pmid: 10571708
|
[13] |
van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJW . Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews m ight be posted on the web: random ised controlled trial[J]. BMJ, 2010,341:c5729.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729
URL
pmid: 2982798
|
[14] |
Groves T, Loder E . Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BM[J][J]. BMJ, 2014,349:g5394.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5394
URL
pmid: 25186622
|
[15] |
What is‘open peer review’, as operated by the medical journals in the BMC series?[EB/OL].[2015-10-30].http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/authorfaq/medical.
|
[16] |
Guidelines for referees[EB/OL].[2015-10-30].http://f1000research.com/for-referees/guidelines.
|
[17] |
How itworks: indexing[EB/OL].[2015-10-30].http://f1000research.com/about#section-box-4.
|
[18] |
Interactive public peer review[EB/OL].[2015-10-30].http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.htm l.
|
[19] |
Overview: Nature’s peer review trial[J/OL].Nature, 2006: doi:10.1038/nature05535.http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html.
|
[20] |
Peer review and fraud[J]. Nature, 2006,444:971-972.
|
[21] |
Jensenius AR . Double blind peer review[EB/OL].[2015-10-30].http://www.arj.no/2010/09/04/double-blind-peer-review/.
|
[22] |
Brown A . Double-blind under review[J]. Nature Nanotechnology, 2014,9:871-872.
doi: 10.1038/nnano.2014.265
|
[23] |
Journal of adolescent health:author information pack[EB/OL].[2015-11-1].https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-adolescent-health/1054-139X?generatepdf=true.
|
[24] |
Berg TD, Irwin CE Jr . Blind no more[J]. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2009,45(1):7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.010
URL
|
[25] |
Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ . Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2008,231:4-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
URL
pmid: 17963996
|
[26] |
Webb TJ , O’Hara B, Freckleton RP.Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2008,237(7):351-353.
|
[27] |
Engqvist L, Frommen JG . Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias. Animal Behaviour, 2008,76:e1-e2.
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.023
URL
|
[28] |
Hammerschmidt K, Reinhardt K, Rolff J . Does doubleblind review favor female authors?[J] Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2008,67:354.
doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2008)6[354a:DDRFFA]2.0.CO;2
URL
|
[29] |
Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL , et al. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students[P]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 2012,109(41):16474-16479.
|
[30] |
Whittaker RJ . Journal review and gender equality:a critical comment on Budden et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2008,23(9):478-479.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.003
URL
pmid: 18640741
|
[31] |
Peer review survey 2009: full report[EB/OL]. [2015-10-29].http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_Review_Survey_Final_3.pdf.
|
[32] |
Ware M, Monkman M . Peer review in scholarly journals:perspective of the scholarly community-an international study[EB/OL].[2015-10-29].http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/112-prc-projects/research-reports/peer-review-inscholarly-journals-research-report/142-peer-review-in-scholarlyjournals-perspective-of-the-scholarly-community-an-internationalstudy.
|
[33] |
Moylan EC, Harold S, O’Neill C , et al.Open, single-blind,double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, 2014,15:55.
doi: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55
URL
pmid: 4191873
|
[34] |
Feedback received[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2012,5:585. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1575.
|
[35] |
Peer-review variations[J]. Nature Geoscience 2014,7:1.doi: 10.1038/ngeo2059.
|
[36] |
Nature journals offer double-blind review. Nature, 2015,518:274.
doi: 10.1038/518274b
URL
pmid: 25693523
|