Serving as a reviewer

Kidney International

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 1081-1087

  Lemann Jr , Jacob ^a  

^a TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomedical research publication; Critique of manuscript; Duplicate publication; Editor's comments; Scientific manuscript assessment; Study design

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ERROR; EVALUATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 0036424346     PISSN: 00852538     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00532.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Goldbeck-Wood S: What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?: The BMJ invites you to join its peer review process. BMJ 316:86-87, 1998
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 108:258-265, 1988
3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 126:36-47, 1997
4. Davidoff F, DeAngeleis CD, Drazen JM, et al: Sponsorship: Authorship and accountability. Can Med Assoc J 165:786-788, 2000
5. Hopefl A: Reviewers' role in improving manuscripts. Am J Health Syst Pharm 58:915, 2001
6. Ingelfinger FJ: Definition of "sole" contribution. N Engl J Med 281:676-677, 1969
7. Relman AS: The Ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med 305:824-826, 1981
8. Relman AS: More on the Ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med 318:1125-1126, 1988
9. Angell M, Kassmer JP: The Ingelfinger rule revisited. N Engl J Med 325:1371-1373, 1991
10. Orcan CH Jr: Statement of purpose revisited. Arch Surg 136:989-990, 2001
11. Cummings P, Rivara FP: Reviewing manuscripts for Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Arch Peditr Adolesc Med 156:11-13, 2002
12. Tufte ER: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, Graphics Press, 1983
13. Seals DR, Tanaka H: Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice reviewers. Adv Physiol Educa 23:52-58, 2000
14. JAMA 280:203-306, 1998
15. Earnshaw JJ, Farndon JR, Guillou PJ, et al: A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 82(Suppl):133-135, 2000
16. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn C: Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:237-240, 1998
17. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA 280:234-237, 1998
18. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, et al: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:240-242, 1998
19. Bext WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML: Who reviews reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer review performance. Ann Emerg Med 32:310-217, 1998
20. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN: Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Brain 123:1964-1969, 2000
21. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomized trial. BMJ 218:23-27, 1999
22. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G: Open peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiat 176:47-51, 2000
23. Dalton R: Peers under pressure. Nature 413:102-104, 2001
24. Rennie D: Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. JAMA 289:300-302, 1998
25. Bluestone N: Thoughts of a manuscript reviewer. The Pharos 59:14-18, 1996
26. Bad peer reviewers. Nature 413:93, 2001
27. Wessley S: What do we know about peer review? Psychol Med 26:883-886, 1996