At the frontier of biomedical publication: Chicago 2005

British Medical Journal

Volumn 331, Issue 7520, 2005, Pages 838-840

  Fišter, Kristina ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICINE; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES; WRITING;

EID: 26644439281     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.331.7520.838     Document Type: Short Survey

References (28)

1. Overbeke J. The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999:32-44.
2. Rennie D. Fourth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA 2002;287:2759-60.
3. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Introduction. In: Godlee F. Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999:xi-v.
4. Yank V, Rennie D, Hero L. Are authors' financial ties with pharmaceutical companies associated with positive results or conclusions in meta-analyses on antihypertensive medications [abstract]? Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
5. Jørgensen AW. Goøtzche P. Sponsorship, bias, and methodology: Gochrane reviews compared with industry-sponsored meta-analyses of the same drugs [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
6. Gardner W, Lidz CW. Failures to publish pharmaceutical clinical trials [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
7. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Comparison ol author and editor suggested reviewers in terms of review quality, timeliness, and recommendations for publication [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
8. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors us good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
9. Goldsmith LA, Blalock E, Bobkova H, Hall RP. Effect of authors' suggestions concerning reviewers on manuscript acceptance [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2000.
10. Egger M, Wood L, von Elm E, Wood A, Sblomo YB, May M. Are reviewers influenced by citations of their own work? Evidence from the International Journal of Epidemiology [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
11. Ross JS, Gross CP, Hong Y, Cirant AO, Daniels SR. Hachinski VC et al. Assessment of blind peer review on abstracts acceptance for scientific meetings [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
12. Fisher M, Eriedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272:143-6.
13. Dickersin K, Mansell C. Rethinking publication bias: developing a scheme tor classifying editorial discussion [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
14. Callaham M, Tercier J. Qualitative profile of journal peer reviewers and predictors of peer reviewer quality [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
15. Smith R. Unscientific practice nourishes in science. BMJ 1998;316: 1036-40.
16. Chew M, Van Der Weyden M, Villanueva EV. More than a decade in the life of the impact factor [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
17. Saliu DKR, Gogtay NJ, Bavdekar SB. Effect of open access on citation rates for a small biomedical journal [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
18. Marusic A, Bates T, Anic A, Ilakovac V, Marusic M. In the eye of the beholder: contribution disclosure practices and inappropriate authorship [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
19. Hopewell S, Clarke M. Trials reported in abstracts: the need for a mini-CONSORT [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
20. Mills EJ, Chan A. Wu P, Guyatt GH, Altman DG. Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
21. Scott JR, Rinehart K, Spong CY. Grading the evidence of published papers for the benefit of clinicians [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
22. Goøtzche P. Are relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts believable [abstract]: Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
23. Altman DG, Schriger DL. The statistical and methodological content of journals' instructions for authors [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
24. Schriger DL, Arora S, Schringer VA, Altmari DG. An analysis of the content of medical journals' instructions for authors [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
25. Siegel PZ, Thacker SB, Goodman RA, Gillespie C. Tilles of articles in peer-reviewed journals lack essential information: a structured review of contributions to 4 leading medical journals, 1095 and 2001 [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
26. Sather C, Nuovo J. Reporting methods of adverse events in randomised controlled trials [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
27. Schwartz LM, Wolosbin S, Dvorin EL, Welch HG. Ratio measures in leading medical journals: where are the underlying absolute risks [abstract]? Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005.
28. Sim I, Olasov B. Trial bank publishing of randomised trials: preliminary results [abstract]. Proceedings of the 5th international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, September 2005. 841-843