Who Are the Peer Reviewers and How Much Do They Review?

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 263, Issue 10, 1990, Pages 1338-1340

  Yankauer, Alfred ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLISHING; TIME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0025122054     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100042005     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London, England: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985:26-38.
2. Inglefinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686-692.
3. Wilson JD. Peer review and publication. J Clin Invest. 1978;61:1697-1701.
4. Douglas-Wilson I. Editorial review: peerless pronouncements. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:877.
5. Gordon M. Evaluating the evaluators. New Scientist. 1977;73:342-343.
6. Relman A. Are journals really quality filters? In: Coping With the Biomedical Literature Explosion: A Qualitative Approach. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation; 1978.
7. King DW, McDonald DD, Roderer NK. Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use and Economics. Stroudsberg, Pa: Hutchinson Ross; 1981:112.
8. Science Citation Index: 1987 Annual. Philadelphia (Pa) Institute for Scientific Research; 1988.
9. Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science. Science. 1968;159:56-63.