Measuring the quality of editorial peer review

JAMA

Volumn 287, Issue 21, 2002, Pages 2786-2790

  Jefferson, Tom ^a   Wager, Elizabeth ^b   Davidoff, Frank ^b  

^a Reviewer Cochrane Collaboration   (Italy)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; TRAINING;

EID: 0037024264     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Peer-review in 18th-century scientific journalism
2. The shortcomings of peer review
3. Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review
4. Technical editing in biomedical journals
5. How does the peer review process influence AANA Journal article readability?
6. Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals?
7. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal
8. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine
9. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals
10. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: Prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet
11. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?
12. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
13. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine
14. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal
15. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study
16. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing; Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review
17. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance
18. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
19. Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review
20. Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study
21. Evaluating peer reviews: Pilot testing of a grading instrument
22. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review
23. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding peer reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized control trial
24. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
25. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial
26. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer-review. A randomized trial
27. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language
28. Agreement among reviewers of review articles
29. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
30. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
31. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial
32. Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial
33. Calling Medical Care reviewers first: A randomized trial
34. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts
35. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal
36. The truth about peer review
37. Peer review on the internet: Are there faster, fairer, more effective methods of peer review?