Electronic manuscript management in Revista Española de Cardiología: New tools for old objectives;Gestión electrónica de manuscritos en Revista Española de Cardiología: Nuevas herramientas para viejos objetivos

Revista Espanola de Cardiologia

Volumn 60, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1206-1210

  Bermejo, Javier ^a   Segovia, Javier ^a   Heras, Magda ^a   Alfonso, Fernando ^a  

^a Revista Espanola de Cardiologia   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL LITERATURE; ONLINE SYSTEM; PEER REVIEW;

EID: 37349005933     PISSN: 03008932     EISSN: 15792242     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1157/13111794     Document Type: Letter

References (17)

1. Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J. Impactología, impactitis, impactoterapia. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2005;58:1239-45.
2. Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J. Revista Española de Cardiología 2005: actividad y reconocimiento científico. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2005;58:1482-7.
3. Alfonso F, Segovia J, Heras M, Bermejo J. Revista Española de Cardiología 2006. Actividad, difusión e impacto científico. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59:1339-44.
4. Alfonso F, Segovia J, Heras M, Bermejo J. Publicación de ensayos clínicos en revistas científicas: consideraciones editoriales. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59:1206-14.
5. Peters J. The hundred years war started today: an exploration of electronic peer review [citado Sep 2007]. J Electronic Publishing. 1996;1:1-2. Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3336451.0001.117
6. Beebe L, Meyers B. Digital workflow: managing the process electronically [citado Sep 2007]. J Electronic Publishing. 2000;5:4. Disponible en: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/05-04/sheridan.html
7. Meyers B. Peer review software: has it made a mark on the world of scholarly journals? [citado Sep 2007]. Disponible en: http://www. editorialmanager.com/homepage/resources/peerreview.pdf
8. Roberts P. Scholarly publishing, peer review and the internet [citado Sep 2007]. Disponible en: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_4/proberts/index. html#author
9. Shapiro K. Bibliography and Summary: Electronic Peer Review Management. A report prepared by Kam Shapiro for the Scholarly Publishing Office [citado Sep 2007]. Disponible en: http://spo.umdl.umich.edu/monthly/peerreview.html
10. Aries Systems. Journals using our workflow solutions [citado Sep 2007]. Disponible en: http://www.editorialmanager.com/homepage/journals.html
11. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234-7.
12. Brown RJ. The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come? Qual Assur. 2005;11:103-9.
13. Regehr G, Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ. 2006;40:832-9.
14. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295:314-7.
15. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a raterblinded, retrospective study. BMC Med. 2006;4:13.
16. Valente S. After the critique: revise and resubmit your manuscript. Nurse Author Ed. 2005;15:1-3.
17. Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:848-54.