Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals

Medical Reference Services Quarterly

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 13-26

  Eldredge, Jonathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptance rates; Blinding; Editorial peer review; Masking; Peer reviewers; Quality assurance; Refereeing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL MEDICINE; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL MEDICINE; DECISION MAKING; GUIDELINES; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033142307     PISSN: 02763869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J115v18n02_02     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Desai, N.S.; Dole, E.J.; Yeatman, S.T.; and Troutman, W.G. "Evaluation of Drug Information in an Internet Newsgroup." Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association NS37(July-August 1997):391-4.
2. Impicciatore, P.; Pandolfini, C.; Casella, N.; and Bonati, M. "Reliability of Health Information for the Public on the World Wide Web: Systematic Survey of Advice on Managing Fever in Children at Home." BMJ 314(June 28, 1997):1875-9.
3. Talley, R.C. "Trouble on the Internet." American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 54(April 1, 1997):757.
4. Anonymous. "The Web of Information Inequality." Lancet 349(June 21, 1997):1781.
5. Davidoff, F. "Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded. "Annals of Internal Medicine 128(January 1, 1998):66-8.
6. Crawford, W. "Paper Persists: Why Physical Library Collections Still Matter." Online 22(January-February 1998):42-8.
7. Fortney, L. "World Wide Web Provides Little Full Text Content for Biomedical Journals, Study Shows." At Your Service (EBSCO) no. 45 (July-August 1998):6.
8. Gould, S. J. "Second-Guessing the Future." Natural History 107(September 1998):20-9, 64-6.
9. Booth, C.C. "Medical Communication: The Old and the New." BMJ 285(July 10, 1982):105-8.
10. Silburg, W.M.; Lundberg, G.D.; and Musacchio, R.A. "Assessing, Controlling, and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet." JAMA 277(April 16, 1997):1244-5.
11. Weld, C.R. A History of the Royal Society. London: J.W. Parker, 1848, 177-82.
12. Lyons, H. The Royal Society, 1660-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944, 56-7.
13. Brown, H. Scientific Organizations in Seventeenth Century France, 1620-1680. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1934, 185-207.
14. Kronick, D.A. "Peer Review in 18th Century Scientific Journalism." JAMA 263(March9, 1990):1321-2.
15. Booth, C. "Clinical Science in the Age of Reason." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25(Autumn 1981):93-114.
16. Kahn, R.J., and Kahn, P.G. "The Medical Repository-The First U.S. Medical Journal, 1797-1824." New England Journal of Medicine 337(December 25, 1997):1926-30.
17. Burnham, J.C. "The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review." JAMA 263(March 9, 1990):1323-9.
18. Wilkes, M.S., and Kravitz, R.L. "Policies, Practices, and Attitude of North American Medical Journal Editors." Journal of General Internal Medicine 10(August 1995):443-50.
19. Weller, A.C. "Editorial Policy and the Assessment of Quality Among Medical Journals." Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 75(October 1987):310-6.
20. Eldredge, J.D. "Identifying Peer-Reviewed Journals in Clinical Medicine." Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 85(October 1997):418-22.
21. Beritic, T. "Medical Reviews and the Importance of Being a 'Peer' in Science." Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 32(July 1996):573-6.
22. Altman, L.K. "The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes, and Journal Peer Review-Part 1." Lancet 347(May 18, 1996):1382-6.
23. Goldmann, D.R. "Guardians of the Lamp." Journal of General Internal Medicine 10(August 1995):474-5.
24. Knoll, E. "The Communities of Scientists and Journal Peer Review." JAMA 263(March9, 1990):1330-2.
25. Ingelfinger, F.J. "Annual Discourse-Swinging Copy and Sober Science." New England Journal of Medicine 281(September 4, 1969):526-32.
26. Newell, F.W. "The American Journal of Ophthalmology: 1965-1991." American Journal of Ophthalmology 112(December 1991):723-5.
27. Horton, R. "Sponsorship, Authorship, and a Tale of Two Media." Lancet 349(May 17, 1997):1411-2.
28. Shell, E.R. "The Hippocratic Wars." New York Times Magazine June 28, 1998, sec. 6, 34-38(N).
29. Fletcher, R.H., and Fletcher, S.W. "Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Medical Journals." Annals of Internal Medicine 116(June 1, 1992):951-2.
30. Ahmad, S.R., and Wolfe, S.M. "Advertising in Pediatrics." Pediatrics 95(April 1995):617-8.
31. Wilkes, M.S.; Doblin, B.H.; and Shapiro, M.F. "Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Leading Medical Journals: Experts' Assessments." Annals of Internal Medicine 116(June 1, 1992):912-9.
32. Kessler, D.A. "Addressing the Problem of Misleading Advertising." Annals of Internal Medicine 116(June 1, 1992):950-1.
33. Miller, R.D. "The Publication of Commercially Sponsored Supplements." Anesthesia and Analgesia 77(October 1993):651-2.
34. Hornbein, T. and Bero, L. "The Publication of Commercially Sponsored Supplements." Anesthesia and Analgesia 81(October 1995):887-8.
35. Manske, P.R. "A Review of Peer Review." Journal of Hand Surgery 22A(September 1997):767-71.
36. Frank, E. "Editors' Requests of Peer Reviewers: A Study and a Proposal." Preventive Medicine 25(March-April 1996):102-4.
37. Shattuck, D. "Behind the Scenes at the Journal: How Manuscripts Get into Print." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 98(May 1998):519-20.
38. Tonks, A. "Reviewers Chosen by Authors." BMJ 311(July 22, 1995):210.
39. Smith, J. "Journalology-Or What Editors Do." BMJ 301(October 3, 1990):756-9.
40. Sharp, D.W. "What Can and Should be Done to Reduce Publication Bias?" JAMA 263(March 9, 1990):1390-1.
41. Weller, A.C. "Potential Bias in Editorial Peer Review: A Study of U.S. Medical Journals." Serials Librarian 19(3-4, 1991):95-103.
42. Wilson, J.D. "Peer Review and Publication." Journal of Clinical Investigation 61(June 1978):1697-1701.
43. Twentyman, P., and Selby, P. "The Process of Peer Review." British Journal of Cancer 63(February 1991):168-72.
44. Peters, J. "Electronic Peer Review: Completed Conference." MCB University Press: Environmental Management and Health (1995) 〈http://www.mcb.co.uk/ services/conferen/emh/emhcon1.htm〉.
45. O'Connor, M. The Scientist as Editor. New York: John Wiley, 1979, 35.
46. O'Connor, M. The Scientist as Editor. New York: John Wiley, 1979, 28.
47. Forscher, B.K. "The Role of the Referee." Scholarly Publishing 11(January 1980):165-9.
48. Baue, A.E. "Peer and/or Peerless Review." Archives of Surgery 120(August 1985)885-8.
49. Berk, R.N., and Friedman, D.P. "New Category of Peer-Review Decision: Rejection with Opportunity to Revise and Resubmit." AJR; American Journal of Roentgenology 164(January 1995):235.
50. Saidman, L.J. "Thanks, From the Editor to Many." Anesthesiology 85(December 1996):1229-31.
51. Horton, R. "The Journal Ombudsperson: A Step Toward Scientific Press Oversight." JAMA 280(July 15, 1998):298-9.
52. Sun, M. "Peer Review Comes Under Peer Review." Science 244(May 26, 1989):910-2.
53. Rennie, D. "Congress on Biomedical Peer Review: History, Ethics, and Plans for the Future." JAMA 280(July 15, 1998):213.
54. Flanagin, A. "Blind Peer Review: Tips for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors." Nurse Author & Editor 4(Fall 1994):1-2.
55. Cleary, J.D., and Alexander, B. "Blind Versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals." Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 22(July-August 1988):601-2.
56. Weller, A.C. "Editorial Peer Review in US Medical Journals." JAMA 263(March 9, 1990):1344-7.
57. Roomans, G.M. "Journal Review Should Be Open." Journal of NIH Research 8(August 1996):30-1.
58. Coleman, R., and McDonald, L. "The Electronic Medical Journal of Australia [EMJA] Online Peer Review Trial." LASIE; Information Bulletin of the Library Automated Systems Information Exchange 27(June 1996):14-8.
59. Bingham, C.M.; Higgins, G.; Coleman, R.; and Van Der Weyden, M.B. "The Medical Journal of Australia Internet Peer-Review Study." Lancet 352(August 8, 1998):441-5.
60. Vanchieri, C. "'Outing' Peer Review: Medical Editors Scrutinize the Value of Secrecy." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89(November 5, 1997):1568-9.
61. Blank, R.M. "The Effect of Double-Blind Versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from the American Economic Review." American Economic Review 81(December 1991):1041-67.
62. Peters, D.P., and Ceci, S.J. "Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(June 1982):187-95.
63. Ceci, S.J., and Peters, D. "How Blind is Blind Review?" American Psychologist 39(December 1984):1491-4.
64. Siegelman, S.S. "Assassins and Zealots: Variations in Peer Review." Radiology 178(March 1991):637-42.
65. Gidez, L.I. "The Peer Review Process: Strengths and Weaknesses-A Survey of Attitudes, Perceptions, and Expectations." Serials Librarian 19(3-4, 1991):75-85.
66. Fisher, M.; Friedman, S.B.; and Strauss, B. "The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review." JAMA 272(July 13, 1994):143-6.
67. McNutt, R.A.; Evans, A.T.; Fletcher, R.H.; and Fletcher, S.W. "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review: A Randomized Trial." JAMA 263(March 9, 1990):1371-6.
68. Jadad, A.R.; Moore, R.A.; Carroll, D. et al. "Assessing the Quality of Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials: Is Blinding Necessary?" Controlled Clinical Trials 17(February 1996):1-12.
69. Cho, M.K.; Justice, A.C.; Winker, M.A. et al. "Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking Success?" JAMA 280(July 15, 1998):243-5.
70. Justice, A.C.; Cho, M.K.; Winker, M.A. et al. "Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? A Randomized Controlled Trial." JAMA 280(July 15, 1998):240-2.
71. Gilbert, J.R.; Williams, E. S.; and Lundberg, G.D. "Is there a Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process?" JAMA 272(July 13, 1994):139-42.
72. Zuckerman, H., and Merton, R.K. "Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalization, Structure and Functions of the Referee System." Minerva 9(January 1971):66-100.
73. Miller, A.C., and Serzan, S.L. "Criteria for Identifying a Refereed Journal." Journal of Higher Education 55(November-December 1984):673-99.
74. Juhasz, S.; Calvert, E.; Jackson, T. et al. "Acceptance and Rejection of Manuscripts." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-18(September 1975):177-85.
75. Beyer, J.M. "Editorial Policies and Practices Among Leading Journals in Four Scientific Fields." Sociological Quarterly 19(Winter 1978):68-88.
76. Arciniega, L.T., and Miller, W.R. "Where to Publish? Some Considerations Among English-Language Addiction Journals." Addiction 92(December 1997):1639-48.
77. Hargens, L.L. "Variation in Journal Peer Review Systems: Possible Causes and Consequences." JAMA 263(March 9, 1990):1348-52.
78. Mahoney, M.J. "Publication: The Endless Quest." In The Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative, edited by M. J. Mahoney. Cambridge MA: Ballinger, 1976, 79-107.
79. Budd, J. "Publication in Library & Information Science: The State of the Literature." Library Journal 113(September 1, 1988):125-31.
80. Abby, M.; Massey, M.D.; Galandiuk, S.; and Polk, H.C. "Peer Review Is an Effective Screening Process to Evaluate Medical Manuscripts." JAMA 272(July 13, 1994):105-7.
81. Hunt, M. "A University Without Walls." Outlook Magazine (Washington University School of Medicine) 19(Autumn 1982):14-7.
82. Garfunkel, J.M.; Lawson, E.E.; Hamrick, H.J.; and Ulshen, M.H. "Effect of Acceptance or Rejection on the Author' Evaluation of Peer Review of Medical Manuscripts. "JAMA 263(March 9, 1990):1376-8.
83. Abelson, P. "Mechanisms for Evaluating Scientific Information and the Role of Peer Review." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41(April 1990):217-22.
84. Yankauer, A. "Peering at Peer Review," CBE Views 8(Summer 1985):7-10.
85. Whitman, N., and Eyre, S. "The Pattern of Publishing Previously Rejected Articles in Selected Journals." Family Medicine 17(January-February 1985):26-8.
86. Marshall, E. "Suit Alleges Misuse of Peer Review." Science 270(December 22, 1995):1912-4.
87. Marshall, E. "Trial Set to Focus on Peer Review." Science 273(August 30, 1996):1162-4.
88. Anonymous. "The Farmington Consensus." Addiction 92(December 1997):1617-8.
89. Huston, P. "Information for Peer Reviewers." Canadian Medical Association Journal 150(April 15, 1994):1211-6.
90. Armstrong, J.S. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors." Journal of Forecasting 1(1, 1982):83-104.
91. DeBakey, L. The Scientific Journal: Editorial Policies and Practices: Guidelines for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors. St. Louis: Mosby, 1976, 18-21.
92. Cho, M.K., and Bero, L.A. "Instruments for Assessing the Quality of Drug Studies Published in the Medical Literature." JAMA 272(July 13, 1994):101-4.
93. Cotton, P. "Flaws Documented, Reforms Debated at Congress on Journal Peer Review." JAMA 270 (December 15, 1993):2775-8.
94. Kemper, K.J. "Pride and Prejudice in Peer Review." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44(4-5, 1991):343-5.
95. Waeckerle, J.F., and Callaham, M.L. "Medical Journals and the Science of Peer Review: Raising the Standard." Annals of Emergency Medicine 28 (July 1996): 75-7.
96. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals." Annals of Internal Medicine 126(January 1, 1997):36-47.
97. Eldredge, J. "A Proposed Research Agenda for Investigating Editorial Peer Review." Hypothesis; The Newsletter of the Research Section of MLA 12(Fall 1998):11-5.