Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 549-556

  Turcotte, Claudine ^a   Drolet, Pierre ^a   Girard, Michel ^a  

^a MAISONNEUVE ROSEMONT HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; CANADA; CASE REPORT; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; GEOGRAPHY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WRITING;

EID: 3042781783     PISSN: 0832610X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03018396     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Feurer ID, Becker GJ, Picus D, Ramirez E, Darcy MD, Hicks ME. Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrument. JAMA 1994; 272: 98-100.
2. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 422-8.
3. 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.
4. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889-96.
5. Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee. Review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 2001; 76: 897-978.
6. Bligh J. What happens to manuscripts submitted to the Journal? (Editorial) Med Educ 1998; 32: 567-70.
7. 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.
8. Cullen DJ, Macaulay A. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal. Acad Med 1992; 67: 856-9.
9. Eckberg DL. When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science. Behav Brain Sci 1991; 14: 145-6.
10. Eichorn P, Tankauer A. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 1011-2.
11. Evans JT, Nadjari HI, Burchell SA. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem. JAMA 1990; 263: 1353-4.
12. Rosenfeld RM. The seven habits of highly effective data users (Editorial). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 118: 144-58.
13. 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.
14. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 443-50.
15. Fox R. Writing a case report: an editor's eye view. Hosp Med 2000; 61: 863-4.
16. Wright SM, Kouroukis C. Capturing zebras: what to do with a reportable case. CMAJ 2000; 163: 429-31.
17. Vandenbroucke JP. In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 330-4.
18. Link AM. US and non-US submissions. An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998; 280: 246-7.