SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    F. Godlee, T. Jefferson, Eds. ( 2003) Peer Review in Health Sciences, BMJ Publishing Group. ISBNO-7279-1181-3.
  • 2
    M. Ware ( 2009) Peer review in scholarly journals—Perspective of the scholarly community: An international study; Available at:http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm.
  • 3
    S.T. Brookes,R. English,K. Avery,J.M. Blazeby,Y. Ben-Shlomo ( 2006) The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med. Educ. 40, 965972.
  • 4
    O.C. Hafner,P. Hafner ( 2003) Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25, 15091528.
  • 5
    L. Hammersley-Fletcher,P. Orsmond ( 2004) Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a meaningful process? Stud Higher Educ. 29, 489503.
  • 6
    J.R. Harris ( 2011) Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: an evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 35, 178187.
  • 7
    N.J. Pelaez ( 2002) Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 26, 174184.
  • 8
    L.A.J. Stefani ( 1994) Peer, self and tutor assessment—Relative reliabilities. Stud Higher Educ. 19, 6975.
  • 9
    Nature's Peer Review Debate ( 2006). Nature; Available at:http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html.
  • 10
    N. Hawkes ( 2008) Peer review may not be perfect but alternatives are worse. The Times, March 12, 2008.
  • 11
    D. Forsdyke ( 2000) Tomorrow's cures today? How to reform the health research system? Harwood Academic Publishers: The Netherlands; ISBN90 5702 6031.
  • 12
    S. Harnad ( 1998) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature (online).
  • 13
    D. Horrobin ( 2001) Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 5152.
  • 14
    S. Harnad ( 2008) Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics Sci. Environ. Politics, 8 (online).
  • 15
    S. Greaves,J. Scott,M. Clarke,L. Miller,T. Hannay,A. Thomas, et al. ( 2006) Overview: Nature's peer review trial. Nature; doi:10.1038/nature05535.
  • 16
    E.V. Koonin,L.F. Landweber,D.J. Lipman ( 2006) A community experiment with fully open and published peer review. Biol. Direct 1, 13.
  • 17
    E.V. Koonin,L.F. Landweber,D.J. Lipman,R. Dignon ( 2006) Reviving a culture of scientific debate. Nature; doi:10.1038/nature05005.
  • 18
    E. Sandewall ( 2006) A hybrid system of peer review. Nature; doi:10.1038/nature04994.
  • 19
    U.P. Thomas Koop ( 2006) An open, two-stage peer-review journal. Nature; doi:10.1038/nature04988.
  • 20
    J. Dawson ( 2007) Electronic publishing as a course context for a capstone project on protein design. J. Electron. Publishing, 10.
  • 21
    H. L. Billington ( 1997) Poster presentations and peer assessment: Novel forms of evaluation and assessment. J. Biol. Educ. 31, 218220.
  • 22
    I.E. Hughes,B.J. Large ( 1993) Staff and peer-group assessment of oral communication-skills. Stud Higher Educ. 18, 379385.
  • 23
    P. Orsmond,S. Merry,A. Callaghan ( 2004) Implementation of a formative assessment model incorporating peer and self-assessment. Innov. Educ. Teaching Int. 41, 273290.