Kronick DA. Peer-review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA.1990;263:1321-1322.
Wager E, Jefferson T. The shortcomings of peer review. Learned Publishing.2001;14:257-263.
Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA.2002;287:2784-2786.
Alderson P, Davidoff F, Jefferson TO, Wager E. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical
studies [protocol for Cochrane Methodology Review on CD ROM]. Oxford, England: Cochrane Library, Update Software; 2001;issue 3.
Wager E, Middleton P. Technical editing in biomedical journals. JAMA.2002;287:2821-2824.
Wager E, Middleton P. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals [Protocol
for a Cochrane Methodology Review on CD ROM]. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Library Update Software; 2001;issue
Biddle C, Aker J. How does the peer review process influence AANA Journal article readability? AANA J.1996;64:65-68.
Elvik R. Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals
more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals? Accid Anal Prev.1998;30:101-118.
Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published
in the British Medical Journal. JAMA.1990;263:1355-1357.
Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med.1994;121:11-21.
Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a
comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA.1998;280:278-280.
Jefferson T, Smith R, Yee Y, Drummond M, Pratt M, Gale R. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic
submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet. JAMA.1998;280:275-277.
Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? JAMA.1994;272:117-119.
Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality
of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet.1996;348:1480-1483.
Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published
in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA.1994;272:119-121.
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements
compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA.1994;272:108-113.
Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van der Weyden MB. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet
peer-review study. Lancet.1998;352:441-445.
Blank RM. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing; experimental
evidence from the American Economic Review. Am Econ Rev.1991;81:1041-1067.
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality
and performance. Ann Emerg Med.1998;32(3 pt 1):318-322.
Das Sinha S, Sahni P, Nundy S. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve
the quality of manuscript reviews? Natl Med J India.1999;12:210-213.
Ernst E, Resch KL. Reviewer bias against the unconventional? a randomized double-blind
study of peer review. Complement Ther Med.1999;7:19-23.
Ernst E, Resch KL. Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study. J Lab Clin Med.1994;124:178-182.
Feurer ID, Becker GJ, Picus D, Ramirez E, Darcy MD, Hicks ME. Evaluating peer reviews: pilot testing of a grading instrument. JAMA.1994;272:98-100.
Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA.1994;272:143-146. [published correction appears in JAMA. 1994;272:1170].
Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding peer reviewers and
asking them to sign their reports: a randomized control trial. JAMA.1998;280:237-240.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D.
et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is
blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials.1996;17:1-12.
Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA.1998;280:240-242.
McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer-review. a randomized
Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee
characteristics and publication language. JAMA.1994;272:149-151.
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J.
et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol.1991;44:91-98.
Strayhorn Jr J, McDermott Jr JF, Tanguay P. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for
the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry.1993;150:947-952.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'
recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ.1999;318:23-27.
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry.2000;176:47-51.
Neuhauser D, Koran CJ. Calling Medical Care reviewers first: a randomized
trial. Med Care.1989;27:664-666.
van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer
reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol.1999;52:625-629.
Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med.2000;109:131-135.
Donovan B. The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing.1998;11:179-184.
Bingham C. Peer review on the internet: are there faster, fairer, more effective
methods of peer review? In: Godlee F, Jefferson TO, eds. Peer Review in
Health Sciences. London, England: BMJ Books; 1999;205-223.