BlackNvan RooyenSGodleeFSmithREvansS. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?JAMA. 1998;280:231–233.
2.
CallahamMLTercierJ. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e40.
3.
EvansATMcNuttRAFletcherSWFletcherRH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–428.
4.
GardnerMJBondJ. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA1990;263:1355–1357.
5.
GarfunkelJMLawsonEEHamrickHJUlshenMH. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. JAMA. 1990;263:1376–1378.
6.
GibsonMSpongCYSimonsenSEMartinSScottJR. Author perception of peer review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008:112:646–652.
7.
GodleeFGaleCRMartynCN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237–240.
8.
GoodmanSNBerlinJFletcherSWFletcherRH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11–21.
9.
JeffersonTWagerEDavidoffF. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786–2790.
10.
JusticeACBerlinJAFletcherSWFletcherHGoodmanSN. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?JAMA. 1994;272:117–119.
11.
KronickDA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA1990;263:1321–1322.
12.
PierieJPWalvoortHCOverbekeAJPM. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Beneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348:1480–1483.
13.
RothwellPMMartynCN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?Brain. 2000;123:1964–1969.
14.
ScharschmidtBFDeAmicisABacchettiPHeldMJ. Chance, concurrence, and clustering: Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1000 submissions to The Journal of Clinical Investigation. J Clin Invest. 1994;93:1877–1880.
15.
WeberEJKatzPRWaeckerleJFCallahamML. Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA. 2002;287:2790–2793.
