Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal

Medical Education

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 90-97

  Snell, Linda ^a   Spencer, John ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Education, medical, undergraduate *standards; Peer review *standards; Publishing standards; Questionnaires; Time factors

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW;

EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 12444260642     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Bordage G, Caelleigh A. A tool for reviewers: review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 2001;76:904-8.
2. Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee. Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts. Washington DC: Association of American Medical Colleges 2001.
3. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001;76:889-96.
4. Haggarty L. What is ... content analysis? Med Teacher 1996;18 (2):99-101.
5. 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 (3):231-3.
6. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on the quality of peer review: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ; in press.
7. Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. (Cochrane Methodology Review.) The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software 2003.
8. van Rooyen SR, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7.
9. http://www.mededuc.com/doclib/030716guidelinesforreviewersdraft.pdf. [Accessed September 2003.]
10. Albert T. Peer review: thinking the unthinkable. BMJ 1999;319:861.
11. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ 1997;315:759-60.