Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?

National Medical Journal of India

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 210-213

  Das Sinha, Savitri ^a   Sahni, P ^a   Nundy, S ^a  

^a ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INDIA; PEER REVIEW; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

HUMANS; INDIA; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0033182035     PISSN: 0970258X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Mangla B. Indian medical journals. Lancet 1993;341:1655.
2. Sahni P, Reddy PP, Ravi Kiran, Reddy KS, Pande GK, Nundy S. Indian medical journals. Lancet 1992;339:1589-91.
3. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Ann Intern Med 1994;121:11-21.
4. Pierie Jean-Pierre EN, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 1996;348:1480-3.
5. Ingelfinger RJK. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med 1974;56: 686-92.
6. Lock S. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1986:5-6.
7. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Peer review and medical journals: How to make a good thing better? Natl Med J India 1994;7:103-5.
8. Abby M, Massey MD, Galandiuk S, Polk HC Jr. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. JAMA 1994;272:105-7.
9. Smith R. Peer review: Reform or revolution? BMJ 1997;315:759-60.
10. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-8.
11. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371-6.
12. Reddy KS, Sahni P, Pande GK, Nundy S. Research in Indian medical institutes. Natl Med J India 1991;4:90-2.
13. Arunachalam S. How relevant is medical research done in India? A study based on Medline. Curr Sci 1997;72:912-22.
14. Arunachalam S. Does India perform medical research in areas where it is most needed? Natl Med J India 1998;11:27-34.
15. Goldbeck-Wood S. What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? The BMJ invites you to join its peer review process. BMJ 1998;316:86.
16. Polak JF. The role of the manuscript review er in the peer review process. Am J Roent 1995;165:685-8.
17. Wain-Hobson S. Peer reviewers could do much better. Nature 1997;385:384.