References

Benos, J., Kirk, K. K. & Hall, J. E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(2), 47—52.

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. & Daniel, H-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226—38.

Brown, T. (2004). Stop whispering about peer review. The Scientist, 18(17), 8—9.

Gade, P. A., Constanza, D. P. & Kaplan, J. D. (2006). Reviewing grant and contract proposals. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing scientific works in psychology (pp. 101-23). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Godlee, F. & Jefferson, T. (Eds.) (2003). Peer review in health sciences (2nd edn). London: BMJ Publishing Group.

Godoy, L. A. (2006). Differences between experts and novices in the review of engineering papers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(1), 24—8.

Hojat, J. S., Gonnella, J. S. & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgement by the 'gatekeepers' of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75—96.

Hoppin, F. G. (2002). How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(8), 1019—23.

Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87-92.

VandenBos, G. R., Frank-McNeil, J. & Amsel, J. (2006). Reviewing book proposals. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing scientific works in psychology (pp. 79-88). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

0 0

Post a comment