Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives

Jefferson T, Godlee F, (Eds): Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2003, London: BMJ Books, 2

Nationa Institutes for Health: Enhancing peer review at NIH. [ http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/index.html ]

European Medical Research Councils: Present Status and Future Strategy for Medical Research in Europe. 2007, Strasbourg, France: European Science Foundation

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 18: MR000016.

Anonymous: Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review: selected proceedings from the first international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA. 1990, 263: 1317-1441. 10.1001/jama.263.10.1317.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. [ http://www.ICMJE.org ]

Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C: Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 18: MR000003.

National Institutes of Health: 2007-2008 peer review self-study final draft. [ http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/meetings/nihpeerreviewreportfinaldraft.pdf ]

Tite L, Schroter S: Why do reviewers decline to review for journals? A survey. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 2007, 61: 9-12. 10.1136/jech.2006.049817.

Godlee F: Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2762-2765. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.