Peer review of manuscripts: Theory and practice

Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 327-330

  Young, Simon N ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Editorial policies; Peer review; Periodicals; Publishing; Research; Writing

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICINE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EDITORIAL; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; NEUROSCIENCE; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHIATRY;

HUMANS; NEUROSCIENCES; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; PSYCHIATRY; QUEBEC;

EID: 0141862243     PISSN: 11804882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 2002;287:2786-90.
2. Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical study (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software;2003.
3. Dalton R. Peers under pressure. Nature 2001;413:102-4.
4. Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA 2002;287:2795-6.
5. Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Prodding tardy reviewers: a randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail. JAMA 2002;287:2794-5.
6. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002;287:2762-5.
7. Howard L, Wilkinson G. Peer review and editorial decision-making. Br J Psychiatry 1998;173:110-3.
8. Thorngate T, Faregh N, Young M. Mining the archives: analyses of CIHR research grant applications. Ottawa: Psychology Department, Carlton University; 2002. Available: www.carleton.ca/%7Ewarrent/reports/mining_the_archives.pdf (accessed 2003 Jul 14).
9. Knight J. Clear as mud. Nature 2003;423:376-8.
10. Yank V, Rennie D. Reporting of informed consent and ethics committee approval in clinical trials. JAMA 2002;287:2835-8.
11. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? JAMA 2002;287:2765-7.
12. Sperschneider T, Kleinert S, Horton R. Appealing to editors? Lancet 2003;361:1926.
13. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA 2002;287:2790-3.
14. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA 2002;287:2781-3.
15. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Guyatt GH. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:380-8.