Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.

@article{Snell2005ReviewersPO,
  title={Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.},
  author={Linda S. Snell and John Spencer},
  journal={Medical education},
  year={2005},
  volume={39 1},
  pages={
          90-7
        }
}
AIMS To explore the review process from the reviewers' perspective, including perceptions of the time taken to carry out a review, barriers to and facilitators of the review process, benefits of reviewing, opinions about blinded versus transparent reviews, how the process of reviewing might be made easier, and to assess reviewers' experience of, and training in, the peer review process. SUBJECTS Reviewers for Medical Education invited to review over a 5-month period between 1st June and 31st… CONTINUE READING
Highly Cited
This paper has 34 citations. REVIEW CITATIONS

From This Paper

Topics from this paper.

Citations

Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 12 extracted citations

Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals

View 4 Excerpts
Method Support
Highly Influenced