Peer review and editorial decision-making

British Journal of Psychiatry

Volumn 173, Issue AUG., 1998, Pages 110-115

  Howard, Louise ^a   Wilkinson, Greg ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REVIEW;

EID: 0031849687     PISSN: 00071250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.173.2.110     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Abby, M., Massey, M. D., Galanduk, S., et al (1994) Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 105-107.
2. Altman, D. G. (1991) Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall.
3. Bornstein, R. F. (1991) The predictive validity of peer review: a neglected issue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 138-139.
4. Ciechetti, D. V. (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
5. Crandall, R. (1991) What should be done to improve reviewing? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 143.
6. Feurer, I. D., Becker, G. J., Picus, D., et al (1994) Evaluating peer reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 98-100.
7. Frank, E. (1996) Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. Preventive Medicine, 25, 102-104.
8. Howard, L. M. & Wilkinson, G. (1997) Impact factors of psychiatric journals. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 109-112.
9. Kiesler, C. (1991) Confusion between reviewer reliability and bad/wise editorial and funding decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 151-152.
10. Lock, D. & Smith, J. (1990) What do peer reviewers do? Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1341-1343.
11. Lock, S. (1985) A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincial HospitalsTrust.
12. McNutt, R., Evans, A., Fletcher, R., et al (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1371-1376.
13. Persaud, R. (1995) Peering into peer review. Psychiatric Bulletin, 19, 529-531.
14. Pierie, J. P., Walvoort, H. C. & Overbeke, A. J. (1996) Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet, 348, 1480-1483.
15. Seglen, P. O. (1997) Why the impact factor should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498-502.
16. Smith, J. (1990) Journalology - or what editors do. British Medical Journal, 301, 756-759.
17. Smith, R. (1997) Peer review: reform or revolution? British Medical Journal, 315, 759-760.
18. _ (1998) Unscientific practice flourishes in medicine. British Medical Journal, 316, 1036.
19. Tyrer, P. (1991) Chairman's action: the importance of executive decisions in peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 164-165.
20. Weller, A. C. (1990) Editorial peer review in US medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1344-1347.
21. Wessely, S. (1996) What do we know about peer review? Psychological Medicine, 26, 883-886.
22. Wilson, E. B. (1978) Peer review and publication. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 61, 1697-1701.