Page 1 of 38: [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ]  11   21   31 

#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
1	28	181	2141 1998 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 19 (3): 181-211 Campanario JM Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 1	10	16
2	26	37	1554 1995 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS 76: 217-221 MICHELS R PEER-REVIEW	3	4
3	26	318	2160 1998 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW 59 (3): 677-717 Noah L Sanctifying scientific peer review: Publication as a proxy for regulatory decisionmaking	0	9
4	24	106	2938 2003 ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION 8 (1): 75-96 Hojat M; Gonnella JS; Caelleigh AS Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process	5	9
5	24	41	3614 2006 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY 59 (8): 842-848 Mayo NE; Brophy J; Goldberg MS; Klein MB; Miller S; et al. Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications	0	0
6	22	150	2142 1998 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 19 (4): 277-306 Campanario JM Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 2	7	11
7	22	39	2812 2002 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 (21): 2786-2790 Jefferson T; Wager E; Davidoff F Measuring the quality of editorial peer review	13	21
8	20	42	2533 2001 ANNALS OF SAUDI MEDICINE 21 (5-6): 275-282 El-Munshid HA Evaluation of peer review in biomedical publication	1	1
9	20	41	2654 2001 PHARMACOTHERAPY 21 (4): 395-404 Sylvia LM; Herbel JL Manuscript peer review - A guide for health care professionals	1	3
10	19	27	2811 2002 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 (21): 2784-2786 Jefferson T; Alderson P; Wager E; Davidoff F Effects of editorial peer review - A systematic review	19	27
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
11	19	32	3501 2005 RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH 28 (6): 444-452 Kearney MH; Freda MC Nurse editors' views on the peer review process	1	2
12	18	28	501 1984 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY 18 (1): 64-69 KOSKY R PEER-REVIEW - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE AMERICAN-EXPERIENCE 1972-1982	1	1
13	18	58	1241 1993 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY 27 (2): 311-318 BEATSON JA; LANCASTER JE PEER-REVIEW OF PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC TREATMENTS IN PSYCHIATRY - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE	2	3
14	18	84	3517 2005 SCIENTOMETRICS 63 (2): 297-320 Bornmann L; Daniel HD Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions	2	2
15	17	182	986 1991 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 14 (1): 119-134 CICCHETTI DV THE RELIABILITY OF PEER-REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT AND GRANT SUBMISSIONS - A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION	41	94
16	17	46	2097 1998 LANCET 352 (9124): 301-305 Wessely S Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?	14	20
17	17	47	2281 1999 MEDICAL HYPOTHESES 52 (1): 31-36 Stehbens WE Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review	1	6
18	16	63	3102 2003 SERIALS LIBRARIAN 45 (2): 39-59 Bachand RG; Sawallis PP Accuracy in the identification of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines	2	2
19	15	37	1772 1996 PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE 26 (5): 883-886 Wessely S What do we know about peer review?	4	7
20	15	33	2046 1998 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 (3): 214-215 Rennie D Peer review in Prague	6	12
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
21	15	28	2362 2000 BRAIN 123: 1964-1969 Rothwell PM; Martyn CN Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience - Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?	22	33
22	14	22	2574 2001 HOSPITAL MEDICINE 62 (3): 172-175 Paice E How to write a peer review	1	6
23	13	91	937 1990 LIBRARY TRENDS 39 (1-2): 145-167 BIGGS M THE IMPACT OF PEER-REVIEW ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM	2	7
24	13	30	1587 1995 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 207 (1): 36-38 LEGENDRE AM PEER-REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPTS FOR BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS	2	2
25	13	49	1938 1997 REVISTA DE NEUROLOGIA 25 (148): 1946-1950 Shashok K Shared responsibility in expert reviewing of original articles	0	1
26	13	54	2944 2003 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION 82 (10): 790-802 Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; et al. Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation	0	1
27	13	19	3029 2003 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE 10 (5): 540-542 Ludbrook J Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update	0	0
28	12	27	770 1988 PSYCHIATRIC ANNALS 18 (8): 487-491 ALLEN MG PSYCHIATRIC PEER-REVIEW - A CURRENT PERSPECTIVE	0	0
29	12	42	2561 2001 EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS 23 (4): 343-364 Jayasinghe UW; Marsh HW; Bond N Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience	1	2
30	12	22	2955 2003 ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 139 (12): 1038-1040 Laine C; Mulrow C Peer review: Integral to science and indispensable to Annals	2	3
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
31	11	78	613 1986 CURRENT CONTENTS (32): 3-12 GARFIELD E REFEREEING AND PEER-REVIEW .2. THE RESEARCH ON REFEREEING AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRESENT SYSTEM	0	0
32	11	22	1840 1997 BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 85 (4): 418-422 Eldredge JD Identifying peer-reviewed journals in clinical medicine	2	3
33	11	23	2240 1999 ITALIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY 31 (8): 659-662 Goldbeck-Wood S Secrecy and openness in Peer Review - time for a change of culture?	1	2
34	11	15	2720 2002 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY 179 (6): 1415-1417 Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: Our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies	7	12
35	11	17	2759 2002 CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH 56 (3): 339-346 Opthof T; Coronel R; Janse MJ The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias	1	2
36	11	20	2809 2002 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 (21): 2762-2765 Godlee F Making reviewers visible - Openness, accountability, and credit	13	21
37	11	56	2854 2002 LEARNED PUBLISHING 15 (4): 247-258 Rowland F The peer-review process	3	6
38	11	130	3025 2003 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 56 (1): 69-84 Armstrong JS Discovery and communication of important marketing findings - Evidence and proposals	0	5
39	11	105	3304 2004 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIOLOGIE 33 (1): 62-83 Hirschauer S Peer review research - Reviewed - Sociological shortcomings of academic evaluation	1	3
40	11	29	3562 2006 BIOSCIENCE 56 (4): 333-340 Neff BD; Olden JD Is peer review a game of chance?	0	1
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
41	11	58	3587 2006 HEALTH POLICY 77 (1): 64-75 Contencin P; Falcoff H; Doumenc M Review of performance assessment and improvement in ambulatory medical care	0	0
42	10	29	497 1984 AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST 27 (5): 631-648 COHEN LH; STRAUSSZERBY S PEER-REVIEW OF PSYCHOTHERAPY	1	2
43	10	35	665 1987 CURRENT CONTENTS (5): 3-9 GARFIELD E REFEREEING AND PEER-REVIEW .4. RESEARCH ON THE PEER-REVIEW OF GRANT PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT	0	0
44	10	36	1355 1994 ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 121 (1): 11-21 GOODMAN SN; BERLIN J; FLETCHER SW; FLETCHER RH MANUSCRIPT QUALITY BEFORE AND AFTER PEER-REVIEW AND EDITING AT ANNALS OF INTERNAL-MEDICINE	28	76
45	10	19	1506 1995 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY 165 (3): 685-688 POLAK JF THE ROLE OF THE MANUSCRIPT REVIEWER IN THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS	5	9
46	10	17	1976 1998 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL 26 (3): 211-214 Larson EL Status of peer review	0	1
47	10	22	1992 1998 BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY 173: 110-113 Howard L; Wilkinson G Peer review and editorial decision-making	5	9
48	10	24	2162 1998 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PSYCHOSOMATISCHE MEDIZIN UND PSYCHOANALYSE 44 (1): 88-98 Buddeberg C; Buchi S; Buddeberg-Fischer B What is an original contribution in the fields of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy	1	3
49	10	51	2251 1999 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY 21 (3): 412-421 Cicchetti DV Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review.	1	1
50	10	15	2258 1999 JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE 14 (10): 622-624 van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review	5	6
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
51	10	16	2263 1999 JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY 90 (2): 364-370 Firlik KS; Firlik AD The peer-review process of the Journal of Neurosurgery	0	0
52	10	16	2567 2001 FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL 7 (6): 521-527 Melero R; Lopez-Santovena F Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers	0	0
53	10	18	3130 2004 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY 183 (6): 1545-1550 Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; et al. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers	2	2
54	10	105	3218 2004 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 30 (4): 347-368 Bence V; Oppenheim C The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise	0	0
55	10	54	3519 2005 SCIENTOMETRICS 64 (3): 271-300 Garcia CE; Sanz-Menendez L Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness	0	0
56	10	31	3543 2006 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES 23 (2): 181-188 Rasmussen J; Langer V; Alroe HF Bias in peer review of organic farming grant applications	0	0
57	10	20	3648 2006 MEDICAL EDUCATION 40 (9): 832-839 Regehr G; Bordage G To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer	1	2
58	9	26	1157 1992 ISRAEL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 28 (7): 465-470 PUTTERMAN C QUOTATION ACCURACY - FACT OR FICTION	0	0
59	9	32	1347 1993 TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY 20 (1): 28-32 HAAGA DAF PEER-REVIEW OF TERM PAPERS IN GRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY COURSES	2	6
60	9	16	1369 1994 BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 309 (6948): 143-144 SMITH R PROMOTING RESEARCH INTO PEER-REVIEW	17	28
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
61	9	17	1560 1995 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 274 (12): 986-987 RENNIE D PEER-REVIEW IN PRAGUE - THE INTERNATIONAL-CONGRESS ON BIOMEDICAL PEER-REVIEW AND GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, 1997	1	2
62	9	51	1606 1995 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 70 (1): 100-134 CHAN EJ THE BRAVE-NEW-WORLD OF DAUBERT - TRUE PEER-REVIEW, EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW, AND SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY	2	8
63	9	18	1881 1997 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY 50 (11): 1189-1195 Hodgson C How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems	3	4
64	9	16	2001 1998 BULLETIN OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 86 (3): 421-422 Homan FM Whither peer review: Prague '97	0	0
65	9	14	2198 1999 BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 318 (7175): 4-5 Smith R Opening up BMJ peer review - A beginning that should lead to complete transparency	17	27
66	9	21	2200 1999 BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 318 (7175): 44-45 Goldbeck-Wood S Evidence on peer review - scientific quality control or smokescreen?	10	15
67	9	18	2296 1999 PERFUSION 12 (6): 236-+ Resch KL; Ernst E Peer reviewer bias against unconventional medicine?	0	0
68	9	27	2498 2000 SCIENTOMETRICS 47 (1): 11-23 Claveria LE; Guallar E; Cami J; Conde J; Pastor R; et al. Does peer review predict the performance of research projects in health sciences?	2	2
69	9	23	2726 2002 ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE 40 (3): 313-316 Callaham ML Research into peer review and scientific publication: Journals look in the mirror	0	0
70	9	57	2914 2002 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 8 (2): 155-174 Wilson JR Responsible authorship and peer review	2	3
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
71	9	13	3052 2003 JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING 34 (4): 236-248 Ahmed HS Does peer review process exist in developing-country journals?: The Bangladesh experience	0	0
72	9	34	3057 2003 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY 166: 279-300 Jayasinghe UW; Marsh HW; Bond N A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings	1	2
73	9	28	3283 2004 RESEARCH POLICY 33 (3): 443-454 Viner N; Powell P; Green R Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage	1	2
74	9	29	3398 2005 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES 50 (4): 577-590 Kundzewicz ZW; Koutsoyiannis D Editorial - The peer-review system: prospects and challenges	5	5
75	9	32	3462 2005 LEARNED PUBLISHING 18 (2): 143-148 Daniel HD Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity	2	2
76	9	10	3465 2005 LEARNED PUBLISHING 18 (4): 275-278 Yacoubian GS Publishing in American legal and social science periodicals: an ethical comparison	0	0
77	9	27	3492 2005 PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 116 (5): 1461-1472 Loonen MPJ; Hage JJ; Kon M Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery	1	1
78	9	13	3632 2006 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE 99 (4): 178-182 Smith R Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals	1	5
79	8	18	502 1984 CANCER INVESTIGATION 2 (4): 311-320 LEVY JA PEER-REVIEW - THE CONTINUAL NEED FOR REASSESSMENT	1	2
80	8	35	583 1985 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES (52): 44-54 GILLESPIE GW; CHUBIN DE; KURZON GM EXPERIENCE WITH NIH PEER-REVIEW - RESEARCHERS CYNICISM AND DESIRE FOR CHANGE	0	0
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
81	8	17	1291 1993 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 270 (23): 2856-2858 RENNIE D MORE PEERING INTO EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW	10	13
82	8	9	1403 1994 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 272 (2): 91-91 RENNIE D; FLANAGIN A THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL-CONGRESS ON PEER-REVIEW IN BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION	24	38
83	8	17	1853 1997 DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY 23 (6): 423-428 Salasche SJ How to ''peer review'' a medical journal manuscript	1	2
84	8	13	2350 2000 ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND 82 (4): 133-135 Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; et al. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process	1	4
85	8	24	2688 2001 SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 31 (6): 820-841 Langfeldt L The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome	1	3
86	8	27	2741 2002 BIOSCIENCE 52 (9): 824-829 Liu JG; Pysarchik DT; Taylor WW Peer review in the classroom	0	1
87	8	19	2748 2002 BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 324 (7348): 1271-1273 Bacchetti P Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem	8	20
88	8	21	2799 2002 HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH 37 (2): 483-498 Weingart SN; Davis RB; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; et al. Discrepancies between explicit and implicit review: Physician and nurse assessments of complications and quality	0	6
89	8	17	3217 2004 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 30 (1): 2-11 Wood M; Roberts M; Howell B The reliability of peer reviews of papers on information systems	1	3
90	8	15	3332 2005 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY 184 (6): 1731-1735 Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology	0	0
#	LCR	NCR	Node / Date / Journal / Author	LCS	GCS
91	8	57	3487 2005 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE 16 (2): 180-200 Starbuck WH How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication	1	4
92	8	10	3719 2006 WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY 30 (8): 1366-1367 Thomas RJS Understanding the peer review process	0	0
93	7	61	276 1979 SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 9 (2): 199-232 MITROFF II; CHUBIN DE PEER-REVIEW AT THE NSF - DIALECTICAL POLICY ANALYSIS	13	30
94	7	26	664 1987 CURRENT CONTENTS (4): 3-8 GARFIELD E REFEREEING AND PEER-REVIEW .3. HOW THE PEER-REVIEW OF RESEARCH-GRANT PROPOSALS WORKS AND WHAT SCIENTISTS SAY ABOUT IT	0	0
95	7	14	867 1989 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 20 (1): 9-16 DEWITT E A LOOK BACKWARD - THE PEER-REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL-ASSOCIATION	1	1
96	7	15	1138 1992 CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS 13 (6): 443-445 RENNIE D SUSPENDED JUDGMENT - EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW - LET US PUT IT ON TRIAL	2	2
97	7	14	1343 1993 SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY-SUID-AFRIKAANSE TYDSKRIF VIR SIELKUNDE 23 (1): 43-48 PLUG C THE RELIABILITY OF MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION FOR THE SOUTH-AFRICAN-JOURNAL-OF-PSYCHOLOGY	0	1
98	7	49	1346 1993 STATISTICAL SCIENCE 8 (3): 310-317 COX D; GLESER L; PERLMAN M; REID N; ROEDER K REPORT OF THE AD-HOC-COMMITTEE-ON-DOUBLE-BLIND-REFEREEING	1	5
99	7	22	1981 1998 ANESTHESIOLOGY 89 (2): 507-515 Levine RD; Sugarman M; Schiller W; Weinshel S; Lehning EJ; et al. The effect of group discussion on interrater reliability of structured peer review	2	5
100	7	12	2048 1998 JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 (3): 234-237 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	34	60

Page 1 of 38: [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ]  11   21   31