<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>2007-5057</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Investigación en educación médica]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Investigación educ. médica]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>2007-5057</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Medicina]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S2007-50572015000400236</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.riem.2015.09.001</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Tres siglos después&#8230; ¿Es vigente el arbitraje por pares en las publicaciones científicas?]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Three centuries later&#8230; Is peer review still current in scientific publications?]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sepúlveda-Vildósola]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ana Carolina]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,IMSS Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI Unidad de Educación, Investigación y Políticas de Salud]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[México D.F.]]></addr-line>
<country>Mexico</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>12</month>
<year>2015</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>12</month>
<year>2015</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>4</volume>
<numero>16</numero>
<fpage>236</fpage>
<lpage>241</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S2007-50572015000400236&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S2007-50572015000400236&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S2007-50572015000400236&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[ Introducción Desde hace tres siglos, la divulgación de los resultados de la investigación se ha apoyado en la revisión por pares. Este proceso ha adquirido mayor importancia en las últimas décadas debido al número creciente de publicaciones científicas en temas cada vez más especializados, que requieren ser evaluados para determinar su calidad, originalidad, validez y creatividad científica, entre otras. Sin embargo, el proceso ha sido cuestionado por múltiples razones y recientemente se han planteado nuevas alternativas.  Objetivo Realizar un análisis de la evolución histórica del proceso de arbitraje por pares en las publicaciones científicas, sus ventajas y desventajas, su situación actual y algunas perspectivas hacia el futuro.  Método Revisión narrativa de la literatura y ensayo crítico sobre el tema.  Conclusiones El proceso de arbitraje por pares es necesario. Sin embargo, se requiere evolucionar hacia nuevas formas de revisión de los trabajos de investigación, que involucren los avances tecnológicos y de comunicación presentes y futuros.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[ Introduction For three centuries, the dissemination of research results has relied on peer review. This process has become more important in recent decades, due to the increasing number of scientific research in specialized topics, which need to be evaluated to determine their quality, originality, validity and scientific creativity, among others. However, the process has been questioned for many reasons and new alternatives have recently arisen.  Objective To realize an analysis of the historical evolution of the process of peer review in scientific publications, its advantages and disadvantages, its current situation and some future prospects.  Method Narrative review of literature and critical essay on the subject.  Conclusions The process of peer review is necessary. However, it is required to evolve into new forms of reviewing the research, involving present and future advances in technology and communications.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Arbitraje]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Revisión por pares]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Revisión por expertos]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Peer review]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Expert review]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Bias in peer review]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lee]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sugimoto]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Zhang]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cronin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<volume>64</volume>
<page-range>2-17</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Is peer review in crisis]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mulligan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Perspectives in publishing]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<page-range>2-6</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it?]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Paltridge]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[International Journal for Researcher Development]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<volume>4</volume>
<page-range>6-18</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mulligan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[van Rossum]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[What researchers think about the peer-review process]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Goodman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Berlin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fletcher]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[W.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fletcher]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Ann Intern Med]]></source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>121</volume>
<page-range>11-21</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[The ups and downs of peer review]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Benos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bashari]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chaves]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gaggar]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kapoor]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LaFrance]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Adv Physiol Educ]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<volume>31</volume>
<page-range>145-52</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jefferson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rudin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Brodney Folse]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Davidoff]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Cochrane Database Syst Rev]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Scientist behaving badly]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martinson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Anderson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[de Vries]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Nature]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<volume>435</volume>
<page-range>737-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: All that is necessary for triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Triggle]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Triggle]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Vasc Health Risk Manag]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<volume>3</volume>
<page-range>39-53</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hargens]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[JAMA]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<volume>263</volume>
<page-range>1348-52</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Reasons Reviewers reject and Accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in Medical Education reports]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bordage]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Academic Medicine]]></source>
<year>2001</year>
<volume>76</volume>
<page-range>889-96</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wennerás]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wold]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Nepotism and sexism in peer review]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Biomedical information, peer review and conflict of interest as they influence public health]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Catekin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.I.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McGuire]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.W.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Potter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.I.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[JAMA]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<volume>263</volume>
<page-range>1427-30</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers¿recommendations: a randomized trial]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van Rooyen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Godlee]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Evans]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Black]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Smith]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Br Med J]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<volume>318</volume>
<page-range>23-7</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Godlee]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gale]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.R.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martyn]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.N.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[JAMA]]></source>
<year>1998</year>
<volume>280</volume>
<page-range>237-40</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Smith]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[J R Soc Med]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>99</volume>
<page-range>178-82</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: a randomised controlled trial]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van Rooyen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Delamonte]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Evans]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[BMJ]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>341</volume>
<page-range>c5729</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trail]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McNutt]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Evans]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.T.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fletcher]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fletcher]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.W.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[JAMA]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<volume>263</volume>
<page-range>1371-6</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Regehr]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bordage]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Med Educ]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>40</volume>
<page-range>832-9</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Reviewer recommendations and editors decisions for a conservation journal: is it just crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Campos-Arceiz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Primack]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pin Koh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Biol Conserv]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>186</volume>
<page-range>22-7</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jackson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Srinivasan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rea]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fletcher]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kravitz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[PLos ONE]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>6</volume>
<page-range>e22475</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Classical peer review: an empty gun]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Smith]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Breast Cancer Research]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<page-range>S13</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Get peered!]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jefferson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Shashok]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wager]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[BMJ.]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>327</volume>
<page-range>1439-41</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-rater agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bornmann]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Daniel]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Angew Chem Int Ed.]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>47</volume>
<page-range>7173-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chubin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hackett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EJ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Peer review and the printed word]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chubin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hacket]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EJ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Peerless Sciencia: Peer review and US Science policy]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<page-range>83-122</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Nueva York EU ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[University of New York Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fraser]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[(Re-)reviewing peer review with psychologists and cognitive scientists]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Houry]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Green]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Callaham]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Med Educ]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<volume>12</volume>
<page-range>83</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Effects of training on quality of peer review: a randomized controlled trial]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Schroter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Black]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Evans]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Carpenter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Godlee]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Smith]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[BMJ]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B29">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines?. A survey of 116 Health Research Journals]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hirst]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Altman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[PLos ONE]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<volume>7</volume>
<page-range>e35621</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B30">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomized trial]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cobo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cortés]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ribera]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cardellach]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Selva-O¿Callaghan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kostov]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[BMJ]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>343</volume>
<page-range>d6783</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B31">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Twelve tips. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Azer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ramani]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Peterson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Med Teach.]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<volume>34</volume>
<page-range>698-704</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B32">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Biroukou]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wakeling]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bartolini]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Casati]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Marchese]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mirylenka]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Front Comput Neurosci]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>5</volume>
<page-range>1-12</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B33">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Leeuwndal]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Elsevier initiative leads to faster revision and review times]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B34">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Reviewers¿perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Snell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spencer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Med Educ]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<volume>39</volume>
<page-range>90-7</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B35">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Why be a reviewer]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Benítez-Bribiesca]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Arch Med Res]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<volume>30</volume>
<page-range>343-4</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
