The future of medical journals in the western world

Lancet

Volumn 352, Issue SUPPL.2, 1998, Pages

  Fletcher, Robert H ^a,b   Fletcher, Suzanne W ^a,b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; WESTERN HEMISPHERE;

EID: 0032480618     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)90299-9     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. McDermott MM, Lefevre F, Feinglass J, et al. Changes in study design, gender issues, and other characteristics of clincal research published in three major medical journals from 1971 to 1991. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 13-18.
2. Daniel HD. Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. New York: VCH, 1993.
3. Rennie D, The Cantekian affair. JAMA 1991; 266: 3333-37.
4. Rennie D. Thyroid storm. JAMA 1997; 277: 1238-43.
5. Roberts L. The rush to publish. Science 1991; 251: 260-63.
6. Lock S, ed. The future of medical journals. London: British Medical Journal, 1991.
7. Dyson E. A design for living in the digital age. Release 2.0. New York: Broadway Books, 1997.
8. The Royal College of Physicians Committee on Medical Information Technology. Collecting, communicating and using information: the educational issues. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1992; 26: 385-86.
9. Maddox J. Electronic journals have a future. Nature 1993; 365: 689.
10. Maddox J. Electronic journals are already here. Nature 1993; 365: 689.
11. Edelson AM. On the future of scholarly journals. Science 1998; 359: 359.
12. Susser M, Yankauer A. Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 792-93.
13. Smith R. The end of scientific journals? No longer far away. BMJ 1992; 304: 792-93.
14. LaPorte RE, Marier E, Akazawa S, et al. The death of the biomedical journal. BMJ 1995; 310: 1387-90.
15. Judson HF. Structural transformation of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA 1994; 272: 92-94.
16. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994; 121: 11-21.
17. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. Caveat lector et viewor - Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 277: 1244-45.
18. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence of the effectiveness of peer review. Sci Engineering Ethics 1997; 3: 35-50.
19. Horton R. Prague: the birth of the reader. Lancet 1997; 350: 898-99.
20. Barinaga M, Marshall E. Confusion on the cutting edge. Science 1992; 257: 616-69.
21. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Medical journals and society: threats and responsibilities. J Intern Med 1992; 232: 215-21.
22. Bailor JC 3rd. Science, statistics, and deception. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 259-60.
23. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted journals. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 36-47.
24. Lock S, Wells F. Fraud and misconduct in medical research. London: British Medical Journal, 1993.
25. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Glass RM. Conflicts of interest in the publication of science. JAMA 1991; 266: 266-67.
26. Blumenthal D, Causino N, Campbell E, Louis KS. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences - an industry survey. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 388-73.
27. National Academy of Science. Responsible science. Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington: National Academy Press, 1992.
28. Deyo RA, Psaty BM, Simon G, Wagner, Omen GS. The messenger under attack: intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1176-79.
29. Landefeld CS, Chren MM, Quinn LM, Siddique RM. A 4-year study of the volume of drug advertisements in leading medical journals. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10 (suppl): 111.
30. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 951-52.
31. Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media, Lancet 1996; 347: 1600-03.
32. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1180-82.
33. Definition of "sole contribution". N Engl J Med 1969; 281: 676-77.
34. Angell M, Kassirer JP. The Ingelfinger rule revisited. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1371-73.
35. Steinbrook R, Lo B. Informing physicians about promising new treatments for severe illnesses. JAMA 1990; 263: 2078-82.
36. Kassirer JP, Angell M. Prepublication release of journal articles. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1762-63.
37. Shapiro DW, Wenger NS, Shapiro MF. The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA 1994; 271: 438-42.
38. Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 1997; 278: 579-85.
39. Horton R. The unmasked carnival of science. Lancet 1998; 351: 688-89.
40. Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? JAMA 1994; 272: 117-19.
41. Smith R. Through the crystal ball darkly. In: Lock S, ed. The future of medical journals. London: British Medical Journal, 1991.
42. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Responsibilities of medical journals to readers. J Intern Med 1992; 232: 223-28.
43. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence-based approach to the medical literature. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12 (supp) 2): S5-12.
44. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systemic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995; 274: 1935-38.
45. Imperiato PJ. Demise of a peer-reviewed journal. Lancet 1993; 342: 1160-61.