Correction: Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers

Danielle B. Rice; Ba’ Pham; Justin Presseau; Andrea C. Tricco; David Moher

doi:10.1186/s41073-022-00124-y

Related publications

Article2022

Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers

Danielle B. Rice, Ba’ Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C. Tricco, David Moher

Preprint2024

Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomized controlled trial

Melissa L. Rethlefsen, Sara Schroter, L.M. Bouter, Jamie J Kirkham, David Moher, David Blanco, Ana Patricia Ayala, Tara Brigham, Holly K. Grossetta Nardini, Shona Kirtley, Kate Nyhan, Maurice P. Zeegers

Article2025

Do peer reviewers comment on reporting items as instructed by the journal? A secondary analysis of two randomized trials

Hillary Wnfried Ramirez, Malena Chiaborelli, Christof M Schönenberger, Katie Mellor, Alexandra Griessbach, Paula Dhiman, Pooja Gandhi, Szimonetta Lohner, Arnav Agarwal, Ayodele Odutayo, Michael Maia Schlüssel, Philippe Ravaud, David Moher, Matthias Briel, Isabelle Boutron, Sally Hopewell, Sara Schroter, Benjamin Speich

Article2018

Mild antithrombin deficiency and risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: results from the MEGA follow‐up study

Juraj Sokol, J.F. Timp, Saskia le Cessie, Astrid van Hylckama-Vlieg, Frits R. Rosendaal, Peter Kubisz, Suzanne C. Cannegieter, Willem M. Lijfering

Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Article2019

A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

Ketevan Glonti, Daniel Cauchi, Erik Cobo, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, Darko Hren