Structuring the discussion of scientific papers

BMJ

Volumn 319, Issue 7209, 1999, Pages 580-

  Jefferson, Tom ^a   Petrie, John R ^b   Castro, Aldemar Araujo ^c  

^a UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^b WESTERN INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c Division of Internal Medicine   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NOTE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING;

PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 0033612828     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7209.580     Document Type: Letter

References (8)

1. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ 1999; 318: 1224–1225. (8 May.)
2. Chalmers I. Improving the quality and dissemination of reviews of clinical research. In: Lock SP, ed. The future of medical journals: in commemoration of 150 years of the British Medical Journal. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1991.
3. Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. Islands in search of continents? JAMA 1998; 280: 280–282.
4. Jefferson TO, Drummond MF, Smith R, Yi Y, Pratt M, Kale R. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines on economic submissions—prospective audit of economic submissions to the BMJ and Lancet. JAMA 1998; 280: 275–277.
5. Jefferson TO, Deeks JJ. The use of systematic reviews for peer-reviewing. A population approach. In: Godlee F,Jefferson TO, eds. Peer reviews in biomedical science. London: BMJ Books (in press).
6. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ 1999; 318: 1224–1225. (8 May.)
7. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ 1999; 318: 1224–1225. (8 May.)
8. JAMA 1998; 280: 203–306. [Peer review theme issue.]