2003
DOI: 10.1097/01.phm.0000087607.28091.b7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Peer Review

Abstract: Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 52 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with the broader rehabilitation evidence base, 38 most existing research exploring personcentred rehabilitation draws on western perspectives. Of the 170 papers included in our scoping review, there were no included papers engaging with indigenous perspectives of person-centred rehabilitation.…”
Section: The Concept and Practice Of Person-centred Rehabilitationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistent with the broader rehabilitation evidence base, 38 most existing research exploring personcentred rehabilitation draws on western perspectives. Of the 170 papers included in our scoping review, there were no included papers engaging with indigenous perspectives of person-centred rehabilitation.…”
Section: The Concept and Practice Of Person-centred Rehabilitationmentioning
confidence: 99%