Departments of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bichat-Claude Bernard and Louis Mourier Hospitals, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, University Paris CitéParis, France
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain. 2000;123(9):1964–9.RothwellPMMartynCNReproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?Brain2000123919649Search in Google Scholar
Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178–82.SmithRPeer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journalsJ R Soc Med200699417882Search in Google Scholar
Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P. The quality of statistical reporting in randomized controlled trials in medical journals: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e003842.HopewellSBoutronIAltmanDGRavaudPThe quality of statistical reporting in randomized controlled trials in medical journals: a systematic reviewBMJ Open201441e003842Search in Google Scholar
Wolfram D, Wang P. Evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in peer review: A systematic review. Learned Publishing. 2020;33(1):14–24.WolframDWangPEvaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in peer review: A systematic reviewLearned Publishing20203311424Search in Google Scholar
Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017;6:588.Ross-HellauerTWhat is open peer review? A systematic reviewF1000Res20176588Search in Google Scholar
