The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: A study of papers submitted to epidemiology

Epidemiology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 262-265

  Hall, Susan A ^a,c   Wilcox, Allen J ^b  

^a IL   (United States)

^b Epidemiology   (United States)

^c NEW ENGLAND RESEARCH INSTITUTES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; E-MAIL; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RECORD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; COHORT STUDIES; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 33847057321     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000254668.63378.32     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med. 2000;109:131-135.
2. What happens to your manuscript: characteristics of paper published in volume 160. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:1234-1236.
3. Nemery B. What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine? Occup Environ Med. 58:604-607, 2001.
4. Opthof T, Furstner F, van Geer M, et al. Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovas Res. 2000;45:255-258.
5. MarketTools, Inc. Zoomerang/Zpro. San Francisco CA: MarketTools, Inc.; 2004-2006.
6. Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, et al. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Practice. 2003;20:545-551.
7. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2). J Med Internet Res 2004;6:e39.
8. Couper MP, Blair J, Triplett T. A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in U.S. statistical agencies. J Official Stats. 1999;15:39056.