Is email a reliable means of contacting authors of previously published papers? A study of the Emergency Medical Journal for 2001

Emergency Medicine Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 352-353

  O'Leary, F ^a  

^a ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; E-MAIL; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; POSTAL MAIL; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ELECTRONIC MAIL; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 0037961156     PISSN: 13510622     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Evans L, Nicholas P, Hughes-Webb P, et al. The use of email by doctors in the West Midlands. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2002;7:99-102.
2. Alves DW, Szucs PA. The demographics of e-mail for emergency medicine research. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19:192-5.
3. Mavis BE, Brocato JJ. Postal surveys versus electronic mail surveys. The tortoise ad the hare revisited. Evaluation of the Health Professions 1998;21:395-408.
4. Raziano DB, Jayadevappa R, Valenzula D, et al. E-mail versus conventional postal mail survey of geriatric chiefs. Gerontologist 2001;41:799-804.
5. Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Prodding tardy reviewers: A randomised comparison of telephone, fax and e-mail. JAMA 2002;287:2794-5.