Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 121, Issue 1, 1994, Pages 11-21

  Goodman, Steven N ^b   Berlin, Jesse ^b   Fletcher, Suzanne W ^b   Fletcher, Robert H ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0028576904     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Relman AS, Angell M. How good is peer review? [Editorial]. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:827-9.
2. Relman AS. Peer review in scientific journals - what good is it? West J Med. 1990;153:520-2.
3. Peters D, Ceci S. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5:187-255.
4. Bower B. Peer review under fire. Science News. 1991:(Jun 22):394-5.
5. Altman L. The myth of passing peer review. In: Bailar J, Angell M, Boots S, eds. Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication. Bethesda, MD: Council of Biology Editors, Inc.; 1990.
6. Medical Journals: slowing flow of news on life saving discoveries? Washington Post. 1991;(Jan 25):A25.
7. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990;263:1438-41.
8. Bailar JC 3d, Patterson K. The need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:654-7.
9. Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review [Editorial]. JAMA. 1986;256:2391-2.
10. Rennie D. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication. The first international congress. [Editorial]. JAMA. 1990;263:1317.
11. Gardner MJ, Machin D, Campbell MJ. Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. Br Med J. 1986;292:810-2.
12. Chalmers TC, Smith HJ Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clin Trials. 1981;2:31-49.
13. Meinert CL, Tonascia S, Higgins K. Content of reports on clinical trials: A critical review. Controlled Clin Trials. 1984;5:328-47.
14. Meinert CL, Tonascia S. Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:1-469.
15. Mosteller F, Gilbert J, McPeek B. Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled clinical trials; Agenda for the Editor. Controlled Clin Trials. 1980;1:37-58.
16. Simon R, Wittes R. Methodologic guidelines for reports of clinical trials [Editorial]. Cancer Trt Reps. 1985;69:1-3.
17. Bailar JC 3d, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:266-73.
18. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:426-32.
19. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J. 1986;292:746-50.
20. Berry G. Statistical significance and confidence intervals [Editorial]. Med J Aust. 1986;144:618-9.
21. Braitman LE. Confidence intervals extract clinically useful information from data [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:296-8.
22. Braitman LE. Confidence intervals assess both clinical significance and statistical significance [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:515-7.
23. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:201-10.
24. Soffer A. Can you believe what you read in medical journals? Chest. 1992;101:1417-9.
25. Cicchetti D. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1991;14(1):119-35.
26. Bailar J, Angell M, Boots S, et al. Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication. Bethesda, Maryland: Council of Biology Editors, Inc.; 1990.
27. Chubin DE, Hackett EJ. Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York; 1990.
28. Feinberg BA. Peer review and the NCI's clinical alert on node-negative breast cancer [Letter]. JAMA. 1989;261:695-6.
29. DeVita VT. Is a mechanism such as the NCI's Clinical Alert ever an appropriate alternative to peer review? In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Important Advances in Oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1991:241-54.
30. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press; 1986:1-172.
31. Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA. 1990;263: 1355-8.
32. Wilson J. Peer review and publication: Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978. J Clin Invest. 1978;61: 1697-701.
33. Ernst E, Saradeth T, Resch KL. Drawbacks of peer review [Letter]. Nature. 1993;363:296.
34. Fleiss J. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Second edition. New York: Wiley; 1981.
35. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbe KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(3):255-65.
36. Greenland S. A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1994; [In press].