Published in BMJ on March 02, 2004
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med (2006) 6.97
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med (2008) 4.92
How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. J Med Libr Assoc (2006) 4.89
The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med (2007) 3.47
Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med (2014) 1.71
Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ (2011) 1.67
Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J (2012) 1.54
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health (2007) 1.51
Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One (2007) 1.49
Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ (2014) 1.36
Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Med Educ (2012) 1.18
Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci (2015) 1.17
Improving peer review: who's responsible? BMJ (2004) 1.09
Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices. PLoS One (2012) 1.09
Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics (2008) 1.03
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med (2016) 1.01
Peer review in PLoS Medicine. PLoS Med (2007) 1.00
Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals. Daru (2015) 0.97
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol). Syst Rev (2013) 0.95
Evidence based publishing. BMJ (2006) 0.93
Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals. Perm J (2010) 0.92
Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training. PLoS One (2015) 0.91
'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes. Indian J Anaesth (2015) 0.90
Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers. PLoS One (2011) 0.88
Bias in peer review: a case study. F1000Res (2015) 0.83
What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res (2017) 0.83
Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Plast Reconstr Surg (2014) 0.81
Development and evaluation of a pedagogical tool to improve understanding of a quality checklist: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS Clin Trials (2007) 0.81
Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol (2015) 0.81
Quality control of epidemiological lectures online: scientific evaluation of peer review. Croat Med J (2007) 0.80
Standards in the face of uncertainty--peer review is flawed and under-researched, but the best we have. Dtsch Arztebl Int (2012) 0.80
Quality is our lifeblood. J Hip Preserv Surg (2014) 0.75
What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective. J Med Ethics (2005) 0.75
The ethics of peer review in bioethics. J Med Ethics (2013) 0.75
Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open (2015) 0.75
A review of the review process. J Med Toxicol (2007) 0.75
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res (2017) 0.75
Understanding the peer review process. World J Surg (2006) 0.75
Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res (1999) 17.79
Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2001) 7.24
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ (1999) 5.45
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA (1998) 5.01
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA (1998) 4.03
Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry (2000) 3.93
Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol (1999) 3.13
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med (1993) 2.68
Bayesian subset analysis: application to studying treatment-by-gender interactions. Stat Med (2002) 2.06
Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA (2002) 1.92
Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med (1998) 1.68
Comparative trial of a short workshop designed to enhance appropriate use of screening tests by family physicians. CMAJ (2002) 1.29
Dynamics of HIV viremia and antibody seroconversion in plasma donors: implications for diagnosis and staging of primary HIV infection. AIDS (2003) 11.66
BMJ Publishing Group to launch an international campaign to promote academic medicine. BMJ (2003) 11.51
A common open representation of mass spectrometry data and its application to proteomics research. Nat Biotechnol (2004) 11.42
Integrative analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome by the modENCODE project. Science (2010) 9.78
Scientific literature's open sesame? BMJ (2003) 7.92
Grand challenges in chronic non-communicable diseases. Nature (2007) 7.86
How should we define health? BMJ (2011) 7.82
An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ (2016) 7.49
Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2011) 6.80
Closing the digital divide. BMJ (2003) 6.20
No more free lunches. BMJ (2003) 5.70
The GMC: expediency before principle. BMJ (2005) 5.66
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet (2009) 5.57
FlyMine: an integrated database for Drosophila and Anopheles genomics. Genome Biol (2007) 5.23
Is the NHS getting better or worse? BMJ (2003) 5.04
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med (2008) 4.92
An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet (2004) 4.81
Four futures for scientific and medical publishing. BMJ (2002) 4.51
The functional spectrum of low-frequency coding variation. Genome Biol (2011) 4.42
Take back your mink, take back your pearls. BMJ (2002) 4.36
Open access publishing takes off. BMJ (2004) 4.29
New BMJ policy on economic evaluations. BMJ (2002) 4.27
Assisted dying. BMJ (2012) 4.14
Clinical trial data for all drugs in current use. BMJ (2012) 4.13
Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ (2011) 4.12
Clinical trial registration--looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med (2007) 4.07
Open letter to the leader of academic medicine. BMJ (2007) 4.06
Five futures for academic medicine. PLoS Med (2005) 3.95
Too much medicine; too little care. BMJ (2013) 3.90
Multiple imputation: current perspectives. Stat Methods Med Res (2007) 3.63
Application of genome-wide expression analysis to human health and disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2005) 3.49
The value of resident presentations at scientific meetings. Laryngoscope (2013) 3.48
All trials must be registered and the results published. BMJ (2013) 3.46
Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ (2002) 3.44
Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ (2011) 3.43
Epidemiology of severe sepsis occurring in the first 24 hrs in intensive care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Crit Care Med (2003) 3.39
Does home based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial. BMJ (2005) 3.35
Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study. BMJ Qual Saf (2012) 3.24
Socioeconomic development as an intervention against malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet (2013) 3.22
RAS-RAF-MEK-dependent oxidative cell death involving voltage-dependent anion channels. Nature (2007) 3.21
The discomfort of patient power. BMJ (2002) 3.19
Antidepressant treatment and the risk of fatal and non-fatal self harm in first episode depression: nested case-control study. BMJ (2005) 3.09
Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet (2009) 3.04
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA (2006) 3.03
Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ (2010) 3.00
Open access to peer-reviewed research: making it happen. Lancet (2003) 2.97
Bury the bill. BMJ (2011) 2.90
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet (2009) 2.86
Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials. Stroke (2007) 2.86
Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors. BMJ (2005) 2.85
Spend (slightly) less on health and more on the arts. BMJ (2002) 2.83
Reed-Elsevier's hypocrisy in selling arms and health. J R Soc Med (2007) 2.82
Is private health care the answer to the health problems of the world's poor? PLoS Med (2008) 2.82
What should we do about climate change? Health professionals need to act now, collectively and individually. BMJ (2006) 2.80
Making progress with competing interests. BMJ (2002) 2.79
Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. Lancet (2008) 2.76
Are some diets "mass murder"? BMJ (2014) 2.73
The NHS in the simulator. BMJ (2009) 2.66
Reed Elsevier's arms trade. BMJ (2007) 2.64
Case-mix & patients' reports of outcome in Independent Sector Treatment Centres: Comparison with NHS providers. BMC Health Serv Res (2008) 2.55
Too much medicine? BMJ (2002) 2.53
Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ (2013) 2.50
Women in medicine. MedGenMed (2005) 2.49
Big publishers cut access to journals in poor countries. Lancet (2011) 2.48
Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. N Engl J Med (2009) 2.46
An antisense oligonucleotide against SOD1 delivered intrathecally for patients with SOD1 familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a phase 1, randomised, first-in-man study. Lancet Neurol (2013) 2.43
The future of specialist training. BMJ (2007) 2.42
Reducing the carbon footprint of medical conferences. BMJ (2007) 2.42
The 1000 Genomes Project: data management and community access. Nat Methods (2012) 2.41
Developing clinical guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ (2005) 2.40
Comments on 'Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death'. Stat Med (2008) 2.37
Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu. BMJ (2010) 2.37
Patient safety requires a new way to publish clinical trials. PLoS Clin Trials (2006) 2.35
Effect of statin treatment on short term mortality after pneumonia episode: cohort study. BMJ (2011) 2.32
Phase II study of intermediate-dose cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory Ewing sarcoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer (2009) 2.26
Propensity scores: from naive enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Stat Methods Med Res (2011) 2.25
Dealing with editorial misconduct. BMJ (2004) 2.22
Lapses at the new England journal of medicine. J R Soc Med (2006) 2.22
Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well. J R Soc Med (2006) 2.16
Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials. Clin Trials (2007) 2.15
Strategies for multiple imputation in longitudinal studies. Am J Epidemiol (2010) 2.15
Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Med (2013) 2.08
Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ (2013) 2.04
Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ (2005) 2.04
A "fussy eater" with renal failure. Lancet (2010) 2.03
Consultant assessment and appraisal: an outline in practice. Clin Radiol (2002) 2.03
Effect of statins on a wide range of health outcomes: a cohort study validated by comparison with randomized trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol (2008) 2.03
Multivalent avimer proteins evolved by exon shuffling of a family of human receptor domains. Nat Biotechnol (2005) 1.99
Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 1.99
Clinical trial registration. BMJ (2007) 1.95
Defective complement control of factor H (Y402H) and FHL-1 in age-related macular degeneration. Mol Immunol (2007) 1.94
Global response to non-communicable disease. BMJ (2011) 1.93
A time for global health. BMJ (2002) 1.91