CALIDAD DE LA PRODUCCIÓN CIENTÍFICA
DE LOS INVESTIGADORES DE LA FACULTAD DE MEDICINA, UNMSM.
BIBLIOGRAFÍA
1. Sogi C, Perales A. El quehacer de los investigadores de la Facultad de Medicina de la
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina 2001; 62(2):
100-14.
2. Sogi C, Perales A, Anderson A, Bravo E. El proceso de producción científica de los
investigadores de la Facultad de Medicina, UNMSM. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina 2002;
63(2): 115-24.
3. Sogi C, Perales A, Anderson A, Bravo E. Producción científica de los investigadores
de la Facultad de Medicina. Tendencia 1991-2000. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina 2002;
63(3): 191-200
4. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA
2002; 287: 2786-90.
5. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Editorials: Congress on Biomedical Peer Review. History, ethics
and plans for the future. JAMA 1998; 280: 213.
6. Rennie D. Editorials: Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical
Publication. JAMA 2002; 287: 2759-60.
7. Ziman J. Introducción al estudio de la ciencia. Madrid: Editorial Ariel. 1986.
8. Judson HF. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA
1994; 272: 92-4.
9. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA
1994; 272: 96-7.
10. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J. Editorials: Fourth International Congress on
Peer Review in Biomedical Publication: Call for research. JAMA 1999; 282: 1085.
11. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a
good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280: 231-3.
12. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors´ subjective
quality rating of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998; 280: 229-31.
13. Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN. Do readers and peer
reviewers agree on manuscript quality? JAMA 1994; 272: 117-9.
14. Frank E. Authors´ criteria for selecting journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 163-4.
15. Welch HG, Froehlic GW. Preparing manuscripts for submission to medical journals: the
paper trial. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11: 50-5.
16. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trial
published in general medical journals. JAMA 2002; 287: 2799-801.
17. Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical
research. JAMA 2002; 287: 2817-20.
18. Frenk J, Bobadilla JL, Sepúlveda J, Rosenthal J, Ruelas E. Un modelo conceptual para
la investigación en salud pública. Bol Of Sanit Panam 1986; 101(5): 477-89.
19. Sánchez MA. Estructura de los artículos biomédicos. En: Historia, teoría y método
de la medicina: introducción al pensamiento médico. Barcelona: Ed. Masson. 1998.
20. Wager E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals. A
systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2821-4.
21. Howard L, Wilkinson G. Peer review and editorial decision making. Neuroendocrinology
Letters 1999; 20(5): 256-60.
22. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker Ch, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized
trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002; 287: 2801-4.
23. Yank V, Rennie D. Reporting of informed consent and ethics committee approval in
clinical trials. JAMA 2002; 287: 2835-8.
Regresar
|
