1475-1313/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=0d151d80eca5d91a7844dbe3f729615524c2dc6d)
1475-1313/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=4a5b3eac832c981b6e89fefc6d6c676aabca3292)
Editorial
You have free access to this content
Thank you to our reviewers
Article first published online: 7 OCT 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00874.x
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2011 The College of Optometrists
Additional Information
How to Cite
Elliott, D. B. (2011), Thank you to our reviewers. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31: 559–563. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00874.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 7 OCT 2011
- Article first published online: 7 OCT 2011
References
- 1, & . Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA 2002; 287: 2781–2783.
- 2
- 3. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ 2010; 341: c6425.
- 4& . Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 9–12.
- 5
- 6, , & . Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 2: MR000016.
- 7, , , , & . Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2007; 2: e332.
- 8, , & . Statistical guidelines for clinical studies of human vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 123–136.
- 9, & . Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 330–338.
- 10& . An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA 1990; 263: 1355–1357.