Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review

Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

(2018) Sara Schroter et al.   BMJ Open

Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility

(2018) Marko Ćurković et al.   BMC Medical Research Methodology

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

(2016) Rachel Bruce et al.   BMC Medicine

Let’s make peer review scientific

(2016) Drummond Rennie   NATURE

Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention

(2015) Clément Lazarus et al.   BMC Medical Research Methodology

Supporting and enhancing peer review in theBJGP

(2014) Abigail Moore et al.   BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE

How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set

(2014) Iain Chalmers et al.   LANCET

Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study

(2014) S. Hopewell et al.   BMJ-British Medical Journal

Improving the Quality of Manuscript Reviews: Impact of Introducing a Structured Electronic Template to Submit Reviews

(2012) Arumugam Rajesh et al.   AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY

Peerage of Science: will it work?

(2012) Attila Hettyey et al.   TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION

Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals

(2012) Saurav Ghimire et al.   Trials

Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers

(2010) Michael Callaham et al.   ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE

Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes

(2010) Isabelle Boutron   JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Authors’ and Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals

(2010) Mona M. Shattell et al.   JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP

Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness

(2010) Susan J. Henly et al.   NURSING OUTLOOK

Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?

(2010) Richard L. Kravitz et al.   PLoS One

Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research

(2009) Susan J. Henly et al.   NURSING OUTLOOK

Re-reviewing Peer Review

(2009) M. B. Yaffe   Science Signaling

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

(2009) David Moher et al.   PLOS MEDICINE