Manuscript peer review - A guide for health care professionals

Pharmacotherapy

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 395-404

  Sylvia, Lynne M ^a   Herbel, Jo L ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION;

ALLIED HEALTH PERSONNEL; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 0035072577     PISSN: 02770008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1592/phco.21.5.395.34493     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Growth patterns in the National Library of Medicine's serials collection and in Index Medicus journals, 1966-1985
2. Publish or perish - And bankrupt the medical library while we're at it
3. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine
4. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable
5. The evolution of editorial peer review
6. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism
7. Does editorial peer review work?
8. Guarding the guardians: A conference on editorial peer review
9. Investigating peer review
10. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: The first international congress
11. Guarding the guardians: Research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the first International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, May 10-12, 1989
12. Reviewers, authors, and editors: Balance of power
13. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation
14. What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?
15. Pros and cons of open peer review
16. How to "peer review" a medical journal manuscript
17. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
18. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial
19. Writing and speaking in medicine. How I referee
20. Peer review in journals indexed in Index Medicus
21. Understanding the publication process of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
22. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance
23. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
24. The state of evidence: What we know and what we don't know about peer review
25. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts
26. Opening up BMJ peer review
27. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study
28. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER investigators
29. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial
30. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
31. Reviewing manuscripts: How to be critical without being offensive
32. Reviewing manuscripts: Developing an efficient system
33. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses
34. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
35. Checking references: Tips for reviewers
36. How to peer review a manuscript
37. Avoiding the question approach: Making direct comments in manuscript reviews