The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 329-333

  Day, Frank C ^a   Schriger, David L ^a   Todd, Christopher ^a   Wears, Robert L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EMERGENCY MEDICINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; WRITING;

EID: 0036733707     PISSN: 01960644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mem.2002.127326     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. The effectiveness of editorial peer review
2. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions
3. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
4. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine
5. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale
6. Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature
7. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?
8. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
9. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal
10. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality