Benutzer: Gast  Login
Titel:

Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.

Dokumenttyp:
Comparative Study; Journal Article
Autor(en):
Steinhauser, G; Adlassnig, W; Risch, JA; Anderlini, S; Arguriou, P; Armendariz, AZ; Bains, W; Baker, C; Barnes, M; Barnett, J; Baumgartner, M; Baumgartner, T; Bendall, CA; Bender, YS; Bichler, M; Biermann, T; Bini, R; Blanco, E; Bleau, J; Brink, A; Brown, D; Burghuber, C; Calne, R; Carter, B; Castaño, C; Celec, P; Celis, ME; Clarke, N; Cockrell, D; Collins, D; Coogan, B; Craig, J; Crilly, C; Crowe, D; Csoka, AB; Darwich, C; Del Kebos, T; Derinaldi, M; Dlamini, B; Drewa, T; Dwyer, M; Eder, F; de...     »
Abstract:
Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of...     »
Zeitschriftentitel:
Theor Med Bioeth
Jahr:
2012
Band / Volume:
33
Heft / Issue:
5
Seitenangaben Beitrag:
359-76
Sprache:
eng
Volltext / DOI:
doi:10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1
PubMed:
http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23054375
Print-ISSN:
1386-7415
TUM Einrichtung:
Institut für Klinische Chemie und Pathobiochemie
 BibTeX