Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 139, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 1038-1040

  Laine, Christine ^a   Mulrow, Cynthia ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INTERNAL MEDICINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW;

EID: 0347504783     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-12-200312160-00015     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Relman AS. Peer review in scientific journals - what good is it? West J Med. 1990;153:520-2. [PMID: 2260288]
2. Weller AC. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today; 2001.
3. Enserink M. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection? Science. 2001;293:2187-8. [PMID: 11567115]
4. Bad peer reviewers [Editorial]. Nature. 2001;413:93. [PMID: 11557930]
5. Nicholls RD. Peer review under review [Letter]. Science. 1999;286:1853. [PMID: 10610572]
6. Smith R. When to retract? BMJ. 2003;327:883-4. [PMID: 14563721]
7. Goodman SN, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at the Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21. [PMID: 8198342]
8. Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994; 272:119-21. [PMID: 8015120]
9. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348:1480-3. [PMID: 8942777]
10. Purcell GP, Donovan SL, Davidoff F. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. JAMA. 1998; 280:227-8. [PMID: 9676663]
11. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786-90. [PMID: 12038912]
12. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784-6. [PMID: 12038911]
13. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-6. [PMID: 2304216]
14. Lock S, Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? JAMA. 1990;263:1341-3. [PMID: 2304211]
15. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994;272:149-51. [PMID: 8015129]
16. Markland RE. Musings of a well-traveled editor. Decision Sciences. 1989;20: vii-xiii.
17. Bauer SH. Ethics (or lack thereof) of refereeing. Chemical and Engineering News. 1984;62:2-3.
18. Davidoff F. Medicine and commerce. 2: the gift [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:572-5. [PMID: 9518405]
19. Frank E. Editors' requests of reviewers: a study and a proposal. Preventive Medicine. 1996;25:102-4.
20. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280: 231-3. [PMID: 9676665]
21. Harnad S. The self-archiving initiative. Nature. 2001;410:1024-5. [PMID: 11323640]
22. Rennie D, Flanigan D, Smith R, Smith J. Fifth International Congress on peer review and biomedical publication. JAMA. 2003;289:1438.