Michèle Sebag . . . . . . . . Senior Scientist, CNRS, Université Paris Sud . . . . . reviewer Craig Boutilier . . . . . . . Professor, University of Toronto, Canada . . . . . . . . . reviewer Peter Jonsson . . . . . . . . Professor, Linköpings Universitet, Sweden . . . . . . . . reviewer Jérôme Lang . . . . . . . . . Senior Scientist, CNRS, Université Paris Dauphine Patrice Perny. . . . . . . ....

Sometimes I feel like JFK, roaming a city of free (scientific) thinking surrounded by a wall of lack of recognition at best, of hostility at worst. The advance of knowledge relies not only on what we produce as scientists, but also on the evaluation of our work by our peers. The review process plays an essential role in making the science that we publish stronger. We are acknowledged for the wo...

Comment Reviewer Antonio Núñez Reiz, MD. Intensive Care Unit. Hospital Fundación de Alcorcón. Madrid. Spain Comment Reviewer Prof. Marta Sofía López Rodríguez Profesor Principal de Anestesia. Hospital Joaquín Albarrán. Ciudad de La Habana, Cuba. Comment Reviewer Prof. H Foyaca-Sibat and Dr.LdeF Ibañez-Valdés Department of Neurology, and Department of Family Medicine University of Transkei. Umta...

All reviewers recognized the importance of the results described in this study; however, each requested additional discussion of particular points raised in the manuscript. Reviewer 3 in particular raised three important aspects that require further discussion, and had good editorial suggestions for streamlining the Results section for improved clarity. Reviewer 3 also pointed out that data in ...

Below and/or attached are two reviews of the above manuscript. I am pleased to report that Reviewer #1 finds the manuscript acceptable for publication but Reviewer #2 still has some strong concerns. I have some sympathy with the view expressed in your covering letter, that Reviewer #2 may have a biased attitude. However, it would be inappropriate for me to entirely ignore their comments, so I p...

BACKGROUND Our objective was to assess the frequency of data extraction errors and its potential impact on results in systematic reviews. Furthermore, we evaluated the effect of different extraction methods, reviewer characteristics and reviewer training on error rates and results. METHODS We performed a systematic review of methodological literature in PubMed, Cochrane methodological registr...

With the growing popularity of online user-generated reviews, research has emerged to understand the mechanism of how a review is voted helpful, focusing on the central-route influences of review content and quality, yet little research has studied the roles of peripheral cues such as reviewer credibility and contextual factors. Drawing on the theories of elaboration likelihood model and source...