Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 82, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 790-802

  Wagner, Amy K ^a,b   Boninger, Michael L ^a   Levy, Charles ^c   Chan, Leighton ^d   Gater, David ^e   Kirby, R Lee ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^f DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Authorship; Peer Review; Physiatry; Rehabilitation; Research Ethics; Reviewer Guidelines

Indexed keywords

MEDICINE; RESEARCH;

PHYSICAL MEDICINES;

PATIENT REHABILITATION;

ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICAL MEDICINE; PUBLICATION; REHABILITATION; REVIEW; WRITING;

ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PHYSICAL MEDICINE; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0141457961     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Kirby RL: Excellence in rehabilitation through research. Commentary. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1989;68:43-4
2. Dahl TH: International classification of functioning, disability and health: An introduction and discussion of its potential impact on rehabilitation services and research. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:201-4
3. Tate DG, Findley T Jr, Dijkers M, et al: Randomized clinical trials in medical rehabilitation research [review, 67 references]. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999;78: 486-99
4. Instructions for Authors. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82
5. Ottenbacher KJ, Barrett KA: Statistical conclusion validity of rehabilitation research: A quantitative analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1990;69:102-7
6. Dijkers M, Kropp GC, Esper RM, et al: Quality of intervention research reporting in medical rehabilitation journals. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002;81:21-33
7. Dijkers MPJM, Kropp GC, Espers RM, et al: Reporting on reliability and validity of outcome measures in medical rehabilitation research. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24: 819-27
8. Dijkers M: Measuring quality of life: methodological issues [review, 98 references]. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999;78: 286-300
9. Corrigan JD, Harrison-Felix C, Bogner J, et al: Systematic bias in traumatic brain injury outcome studies because of loss to follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84:153-60
10. Corrigan JD, Bogner JA, Mysiw WJ, et al: Systematic bias in outcome studies of persons with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:132-7
11. Zhan S, Ottenbacher KJ: Single subject research designs for disability research. [review, 32 references]. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:1-8
12. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN: Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 2000; 123(Pt 9):1964-9
13. Kumar PD: How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper. J Assoc Physicians India 1999;47:198-200
14. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, et al: The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Int Med 1993;8:422-8
15. Black N, Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-3
16. MacAuley D, McCrum E: Critical appraisal using the READER method: A workshop-based controlled trial. Fam Pract 1999;16:90-3
17. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ: Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials. JAMA 2002;287:2781-3
18. Callaham ML, Schriger DL: Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:323-8
19. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, et al: Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Int Med 1994;121: 11-21
20. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review [erratum appears in JAMA 1994;272:1170]. JAMA 1994;272:143-6
21. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, et al: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators [erratum appears in JAMA 1998;280:968]. JAMA 1998;280:240-2
22. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al: Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators [erratum appears in JAMA 1998;280:968]. JAMA 1998; 280:243-5
23. Goodman SN, Altman DG, George SL: Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: Caveat lector? J Gen Int Med 1998;13:753-6
24. Ottenbacher KJ: Statistical conclusion validity: Multiple inferences in rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1991;70:317-22
25. Ottenbacher KJ: The chi-square test: Its use in rehabilitation research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:678-81
26. Lloyd ME: Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. J Appl Behav Anal 1990;23: 539-43
27. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD: Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA 1994;272:139-42
28. Link AM: US and non-US submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998;280: 246-7
29. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS: Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications. JAMA 1998;280:225-6
30. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Available at: http://www.icmje. org
31. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL: Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Int Med 1995;10:443-50
32. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, et al: Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting [erratum appears in JAMA 1998;280: 1232]. JAMA 1998;280:254-7
33. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, et al: Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: Why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998;280:257-9
34. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al: Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72
35. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, et al: Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peerreviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998; 280:222-4
36. Drenth JP: Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA 1998;280:219-21
37. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Yank V: The contributions of authors. JAMA 2000;284: 89-91
38. Drazen JM, Curfman GD: On authors and contributors. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:55
39. White RM: Sociocultural issues in clinical research: Unraveling the Tuskegee syphilis study. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47:457-8
40. Amdur RJ, Biddle C: Institutional review board approval and publication of human research results. JAMA 1997;277: 909-14
41. Ruiz-Canela M, Irala-Estevez J, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, et al: Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials [review, 27 references]. J Med Ethics 2001;27:172-6
42. Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Gomez-Gracia E, et al: Informed consent and approval by institutional review boards in published reports on clinical trials [erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1999;341:460]. N Eng J Med 1999;340: 1114-5
43. Ludbrook J: Peer review of manuscripts. J Clin Neurosci 2002;9:105-8
44. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM: Introduction to biostatistics: Part 1. Basic concepts. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:86-9
45. Gaddis GM, Gaddis ML: Introduction to biostatistics: Part 2. Descriptive statistics. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:309-15
46. Gaddis GM, Gaddis ML: Introduction to biostatistics: Part 3. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and hypothesis testing. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:591-7
47. Gaddis GM, Gaddis ML: Introduction to biostatistics: Part 4. Statistical inference techniques in hypothesis testing. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:820-5
48. Gaddis GM, Gaddis ML: Introduction to biostatistics: Part 5. Statistical inference techniques for hypothesis testing with nonparametric data [erratum appears in Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:573; review, 9 references]. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:1054-9
49. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM: Introduction to biostatistics: Part 6. Correlation and regression. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19: 1462-8
50. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, et al: Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. JAMA 2001;286:1232-4
51. Bordage G, Caelleigh AS, Steinecke A, et al: Review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 2001;76:897-978
52. Dijkers M. Searching the literature for information on traumatic spinal cord injury: The usefulness of abstracts. Spinal Cord 2003;41:76-84
53. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7
54. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle JF, et al: Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA 2002;287:2790-3