The Outcome of Manuscripts Submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology Between 2002 and 2003

American Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 143, Issue 4, 2007, Pages

  Liesegang, Thomas J ^a   Shaikh, Marwan ^a   Crook, Julia E ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; OPHTHALMOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION;

EID: 33947411970     PISSN: 00029394     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Weber E.J., Katz P.P., Waeckerle J.F., and Callaham M.L. Author perception of peer-review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA 287 (2002) 2790-2793
2. Corona G., Petrone L., Mannucci E., et al. Exploring the relationship between impact factor and manuscript rejection rates in radiologic journals. Acad Radiol 13 (2006) 77-83
3. Cartwright V.A., and McGhee C.N.J. Ophthalmology and vision science research. Part 1: understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indices. J Cataract Refract Surg 31 (2005) 1999-2007
4. Institute for Scientific Information. Journal citation reports (1993), Institute for Scientific Information, Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -1998
5. Hecht F., Hecht B.K., and Sandberg A.A. The journal "impact factor": a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 104 (1998) 77-81
6. Koene H.R., and Overbeke A.J. The ultimate fate of articles rejected for publication in The Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 138 (1994) 2443-2446
7. Chew F.S. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156 (1991) 627-632
8. Ray J., Berkwits M., and Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med 109 (2000) 131-135
9. Mundy D.J. Time needed for publication of journal articles. Ann Intern Med 101 (1984) 61-62
10. Nemery B. What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine?. Occup Environ Med 58 (2001) 604-607
11. Polk Jr. H.C. An editor's perspective of the future for peer-reviewed traditional surgical journals. Am J Surg 161 (1991) 309-311
12. Wilson J.D. Peer-review and publication. Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, April 30, 1978. J Clin Invest 61 (1978) 1697-1701
13. Relman A.S. Are journals really quality filters?. In: Goffman W., Bruer J.T., and Warren K.S. (Eds). Coping with the biomedical literature explosion: a qualitative approach (1975), Rockefeller Foundation, New York, New York 54-60
14. Loonen M.P., Hage J.J., and Kon M. Who benefits from peer-review?. An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116 (2005) 1461-1472
15. 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. JAMA 263 (1990) 1376-1378
16. Opthof T., Furstner F., van Geer M., and Coronel R. Regrets or no regrets?. No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovasc Res 45 (2000) 255-258
17. Amin M., and Mabe M. Impact factors: use and abuse. Medicina (B Aires) 63 (2003) 347-354
18. Walter G., Bloch S., Hunt G., and Fisher K. Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality. Med J Aust 178 (2003) 280-281
19. Falagas M.E., and Zouglakis G.M. Trends in the impact factor of scientific journals. [Letter]. Mayo Clin Proc 81 (2006) 1401-1402
20. Kurmis A.P. Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85A (2003) 2449-2454
21. Rogers L.F. Impact factor: the numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178 (2002) 541-542
22. Curti M., Pistotti V., Gabutti G., et al. Impact factor and electronic versions of biomedical scientific journals. Haematologica 86 (2001) 1015-1020
23. Gallagher E.J., and Barnaby D.P. Evidence of methodologic bias in the derivation of the Science Citation Index impact factor. Ann Emerg Med 31 (1998) 83-86
24. Hansson S. Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals. Lancet 346 (1995) 906
25. Whitehouse G.H. Impact factors: facts and myths. Eur Radiol 12 (2002) 715-717
26. Linde A. On the pitfalls of journal ranking by Impact Factor. Eur J Oral Sci 106 (1998) 525-526
27. Lehrl S. The impact factor as an assessment criterion of scientific achievements: the right to equal chances. Strahlenther Onkol 175 (1999) 141-153
28. Lundberg G.D. The "omnipotent" Science Citation Index Impact Factor. Med J Aust 178; (2003) 253-254
29. The PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game. PLoS Med 3 (2006) e291
30. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314 (1997) 498-502
31. Dong P., Loh M., and Mondry A. The "impact factor" revisited. Biomed Digit Libr 2 (2005) 7
32. Citation data. The wrong impact?. Nat Neurosci 1 (1998) 641-642
33. Ioannidis J.P. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294 (2005) 218-228
34. Frank E. Authors' criteria for selecting journals. JAMA 272 (1994) 163-164
35. We want to publish your work. PLoS ONE Guidelines for Commenting. Available online at: http://www.plosone.org/static/commentGuidelines.action#annotation. Accessed Date: January 16, 2007.
36. Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Available online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Accessed Date: December 3, 2006.