The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: Priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias

Cardiovascular Research

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 339-346

  Opthof, Tobias ^a   Coronel, Ruben ^a,b   Janse, Michiel J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; FRANCE; GEOGRAPHY; ITALY; JAPAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIBLIOMETRICS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 0036890476     PISSN: 00086363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6363(02)00712-5     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Coronel R., Opthof T. The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovasc Res. 43:1999;261-264.
2. Kronick D.A. Peer review in the 18th-century scientific journalism. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263:1990;1321-1322.
3. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263:1990;1323-1329.
4. Guarding the guardians: Research on editorial peer review: Selected proceedings from the first international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1990; 263: 1317-1441 (theme issue).
5. The Second International Congress on peer review in biomedical publication. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994; 272: 91-173 (theme issue).
6. The Third International Congress on peer review in biomedical publication. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1998; 280: 213-302 (theme issue).
7. The Fourth International Congress on peer review in biomedical publication. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2002; 287: 2759-2871 (theme issue).
8. Siegelman S.S. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology. 178:1991;637-642.
9. Scharschmidt B.F., DeAmicis A., Bacchetti P., Held M.J. Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewer's recommendations on 1,000 submissions to The Journal of Clinical Investigation. J Clin Invest. 93:1994;1877-1880.
10. Peters D.P., Ceci S.J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 5:1982;187-195.
11. Wilson J.D. Peer review and publication. J Clin Invest. 61:1978;1697-1701.
12. Opthof T., Furstner F., Van Geer M., Coronel R. Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovasc Res. 45:2000;255-258.
13. Gilbert J.R., Williams E.S., Lundberg G.D. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? J. Am. Med. Assoc. 272:1994;139-142.
14. Wenneras C., Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 387:1997;341-343.
15. Link A.M. US and non-US submissions. An analysis of reviewer bias. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280:1998;246-247.
16. Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc Res. 33:1997;1-7.
17. Opthof T., Coronel R., Janse M.J. Submissions, impact factor, reviewer's recommendations and geographical bias within the peer review system (1997-2002). Focus on Germany. Cardiovasc Res. 55:2002;215-219.