Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 116, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1461-1472

  Loonen, Martijn P J ^a   Hage, J Joris ^a   Kon, Moshe ^a  

^a ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; EVALUATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; READING; REVIEW; WRITING;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DECISION MAKING; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; PUBMED; SURGERY, PLASTIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 26844542794     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000178796.82273.7c     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals and supplemental statements from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/#peer. Accessed May 23, 2004.
2. Evans, A. T., McNutt, R. A., Fletcher, S. W., and Fletcher, R. H. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 8: 422, 1993.
3. van Rooyen, S., Black, N., and Godlee, F. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52: 625, 1999.
4. Wager, E. An author's guide to editorial peer review. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003. Pp. 263-276.
5. Callaham, M. L., Baxt, W. G., Waeckerle, J. F., and Wears, R. L. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. J.A.M.A. 280: 229, 1998.
6. Rothwell, P. M., and Martyn, C. N. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123: 1964, 2000.
7. Fletcher, R. H., and Fletcher S. W. The effectiveness of journal peer review. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003. Pp. 62-75.
8. Howard, L., and Wilkinson, G. Peer review and editorial decision-making. Br. J. Psychiatry 173: 110, 1998.
9. Sweitzer, B. J., and Cullen, D. J. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions. J.A.M.A. 272: 152, 1994.
10. Roberts, J. C., Fletcher, R. H., and Fletcher, S. W. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. J.A.M.A. 272: 119, 1994.
11. Wager, E., and Middleton, P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals. J.A.M.A. 287: 2821, 2002.
12. What's taking so long? Nat. Genet. 33: 1, 2003.
13. Link, A. M. US and Non-US submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias. J.A.M.A. 280: 246, 1998.
14. Coates, R., Sturgeon, B., Bohannan, J., and Pasini, E. Language and publication in cardiovascular research articles. Cardiovasc. Res. 53: 279, 2002.
15. Godlee, F., and Dickersin, K. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003. Pp. 91-117.
16. PubMed. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/. Accessed January 15, 2004.
17. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Editorial Office, personal communication, 2003.
18. Chew, F. S. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol. 156: 627, 1991.
19. Ray, J., Berkwits, M., and Davidoff, F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am. J. Med. 109: 131, 2000.
20. Goodman, S. N., Berlin, J. A., Fletcher, S. W., and Fletcher, R. H. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 121: 11, 1994.
21. Garfunkel, J. M., Lawson, E. E., Hamrick, H. J., and Ulshen, M. H. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. J.A.M.A. 263: 1376, 1990.
22. Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., and Callaham, M. L. Author perception of peer review. J.A.M.A. 287: 2790, 2002.
23. Justice, A. C., Berlin, J. A., Fletcher, S. W., Fletcher, R. H., and Goodman, S. N. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? J.A.M.A. 272: 117, 1994.
24. Pierie, J. P., Walvoort, H. C., and Overbeke, A. J. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 348: 1480, 1996.
25. Mathie, R. T., and Jaffe, V. Publication lag-times in surgical journals. Br. J. Surg. 74: 1188, 1987.
26. Dudley, H. A. F. Publication lag times in surgical journals. Br. J. Surg. 75: 189, 1988.
27. Pitkin, R. M., and Burmeister, L. F. Identifying manuscript reviewers: Randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. J.A.M.A. 287: 2795, 2002.
28. Lock, S., and Smith, J. What do peer reviewers do? J.A.M.A. 263: 1341, 1990.
29. Nylenna, M., Riis, P., and Karlsson, Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. J.A.M.A. 272: 149, 1994.
30. Smith, J. How to set up a peer review system. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review In Health Sciences. 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003. Pp. 151-163.