Our peer-review practice and strategies to improve journal's scientific performance

References (11)

1. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal ımpact factor. JAMA 2006; 295: 90-3
2. Bergstrom C. Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. C&RL News 2007; 68: 314-6
3. González-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F. A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 2010: 4; 379-91
4. Timuralp B. Our first impact factor (IF) 0.378, new supplement, scientific summer school and targets. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 2010; 10: 297
5. SCImago (2007) SJR–SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available at: URL: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=40304- &tip=sid&clean=0). Accessed 24 September 2010
6. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20: 357-8
7. Robin ED, Burke CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest 1987; 91; 252-7
8. Tite L, Schroter S. Evidence- based publishing. BMJ 2006; 333: 366 9. Zuccala A. The mathematical review system: does reviewer status play a role in the citation process? Scientometrics 2010; 84: 221-5
9. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2786-90
10. Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs 2009; 25: 101-8
11. Kliewer MA, Freed KS, DeLong DM, Pickhardt PJ, Provenzale JM. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1731-5.