Using nominal group technique to develop a consensus derived model for peer review of teaching across a multi-school faculty
- Burrows, Tracy, Findlay, Naomi, Killen, Chloe, Dempsey, Shane E., Hunter, Sharyn, Chiarelli, Pauline, Snodgrass, Suzanne J.
Quality improvement research: can it be published? (editorial)
Evaluation of an interpractice visit peer review program for rural Australian general practice registrars
Multiple perspective assessment to manage free riders in group work
- Gajendran, Thayaparan, Brewer, Graham, Mackee, Jamie, Williams, Tony
Is peer review in academic publishing still working?
- Jackson, Liz, Peters, Michael A., Locke, Kirsten, Mihaila, Ramona, Stewart, Georgina, Tesar, Marek, Roberts, Peter, Ozoliņš, Jānis John, Benade, Leon, Devine, Nesta, Arndt, Sonja, Forster, Daniella, Gibbons, Andrew, Grierson, Elizabeth, Jandrić, Petar, Lazaroiu, George
The frontiers of artistic research: the challenge of critique, peer review and validation at the outermost limits of location-specificity.
- Lowry, Sean, de Freitas, Nancy
Experienced journal reviewers' perceptions of and engagement with the task of reviewing: an Australian perspective
Journal peer review: comparing the perceptions and quality judgments of experienced Australian reviewers in education and the physical sciences
Peer review and its contribution to manuscript quality: an Australian perspective
Learning to be confident and capable journal reviewers: an Australian perspective
Access to journals through peer reviewers (Letter)
- McGee, Richard G., Hemsley, Bronwyn, Gill, Peter J.
Internal coherence matters: Lessons for nutrition and dietetics research
- Palermo, Claire, Reidlinger, Dianne P., Rees, Charlotte E.
How many papers should scientists be reviewing?: An analysis using verified peer review reports
Review of the Australian Incident Monitoring System
- Spigelman, Allan David, Swan, Judith
Are you sure you would like to clear your session, including search history and login status?