Perspectives on Medical Education: three changes in our guidelines to make authors’ and reviewers’ lives easier
By: Lauren A. Maggio and Erik W. Driessen
References
- LeBlanc AG Barnes JD Saunders TJ Tremblay MS Chaput JP Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting PLoS ONE 2019 14 e0223116 10.1371/journal.pone.0223116
- Khan A Montenegro-Montero A Mathelier A Put science first and formatting later EMBO Rep 2018 19 e45731 10.15252/embr.201845731
- Warne V Rewarding reviewers—sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained Learn Publ 2016 29 41 50 10.1002/leap.1002
- Norman G Good news, bad news Adv Health Sci Educ 2018 23 1 5 10.1007/s10459-018-9810-9
- Haffar S Bazerbachi F Murad MH Peer review bias: a critical review Mayo Clin Proc 2019 94 670 676 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
- Cox AR Montgomerie R The cases for and against double-blind reviews PeerJ 2019 7 e6702 10.7717/peerj.6702
- Jefferson T Rudin M Folse SB Davidoff F Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 2 MR000016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-020-00563-7 | Journal eISSN: 2212-277X
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 2
Published on: Feb 5, 2020
Published by: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
© 2020 Lauren A. Maggio, Erik W. Driessen, published by Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.