Peer review time: How late is late in a small medical journal?

Archives of Medical Research

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 439-443

  Kljaković Gašpić, Marko ^a   Hren, Darko ^a   Marušić, Ana ^a   Marušić, Matko ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

Author keywords

Peer review; Small general medical journals; Timeliness

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CROATIA; EVALUATION; FEMALE; GROUP PSYCHOLOGY; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; REVIEW; SCIENCE; ARTICLE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; TIME;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MANUSCRIPTS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 1542394875     PISSN: 01884409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2003.07.001     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wager E., Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review. A systematic review. JAMA. 287:2002;2784-2786.
2. Rennie D. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 287:2002;2759-2760.
3. Wood D. Online peer review: current options. Learned Publishing. 14:2001;151-158.
4. Ghali W.A., Cornuz J., McAlister F.A., Wasserfallen J.-B., Devereaux P.J., Naylor C.D. Accelerated publication versus usual publication in 2 leading medical journals. Can Med Assoc J. 166:2002;1137-1143.
5. McNamee, D. What is the lifespan of a manuscript after submission? Third International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Scientific Publication, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Sept 18-20, 1997. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ public/peer/whsu.htm. Accessed 15 March 2003.
6. McNamee D. Fast-track publication at The Lancet. Lancet. 351:1998;542.
7. Gilbert J.R., Williams E.S., Lundberg G.D. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA. 272:1994;139-142.
8. Weir E., Joseph K.S. How quickly does CMAJ evaluate submissions? Can Med Assoc J. 161:1999;985.
9. Pitkin R.M., Burmeister L.F. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA. 287:2002;2795-2796.
10. Marušić A., Marušić M. Small scientific journals from small countries: breaking from a vicious circle of inadequacy. Croat Med J. 40:1999;508-514.
11. Mišak A., Petrak J., Pećina M. Scientific biomedical journals in Croatia. Croat Med J. 43:2002;8-15.
12. Marušić A., Lukić I.K., Marušić M., McNamee D., Sharp D., Horton R. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and The Lancet. Croat Med J. 43:2002;286-289.
13. Marušić A., Mišak A., Kljaković- Gašpić M., Marušić M. Educatione ad excellentiam - ten years of the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J. 43:2002;1-7.
14. Marušić A., Marušić M. What can medical journal editors do in war? Lancet. 360:(Suppl):2002;s59-s60.
15. Marušić A., Meštrović T., Petrovečki M., Marušić M. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996. Croat Med J. 39:1998;3-9.
16. Marušić M., Marušić A. Good Editorial practice: editors as educators. Croat Med J. 42:2001;113-120.
17. Danić A., Hadžibegović I., Loparić M. Status of women in small academic medical communities: case study of the Zagreb University School of Medicine. Croat Med J. 44:2003;36-40.
18. Zuber M.A. Underrepresentation of women among peer reviewers and textbook authors in medicine in Germany. [in German] Medizin Klinik. 96:2001;173-180.
19. Tesch B.J., Wood H.M., Helwig A.L., Nattinger A.B. Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky floor? JAMA. 273:1995;1022-1025.
20. Roter D.L., Hall J.A., Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA. 288:2002;756-764.