Readability in the British Journal of Surgery

British Journal of Surgery

Volumn 95, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 119-124

  Hayden, J D ^a  

^a LEEDS GENERAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; EDITOR; LANGUAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; READING; COMPREHENSION; PEER REVIEW; STANDARD; STATISTICS; SURGERY; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMPREHENSION; GREAT BRITAIN; MANUSCRIPTS AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; READING; SURGERY;

EID: 38549149506     PISSN: 00071323     EISSN: 13652168     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5994     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. McLaughlin GH. Proposals for British readability measures. In The Third International Reading Symposium, Downing J, Brown AL (eds). Cassell: London, 1968; 186-205.
2. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948; 32: 221-233.
3. Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch- Kincaid_Readability_Test [accessed 22 March 2007].
4. Biddle C, Aker J. How does the peer review process influence AANA journal article readability? AANA J 1996; 64: 65-68.
5. Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA 1994; 272: 119-121.
6. Beyer DR, Lauer MS, Davis S. Readability of informed-consent forms. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2262-2263.
7. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004; 19: 117-122.
8. Poulton EC. Effects of printing types and formats on the comprehension of scientific journals. Nature 1959; 184(Suppl 23): 1824-1825.
9. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994; 121: 11-21.
10. Hedl JJ Jr, Glazer-Waldman HR, Parker HJ, Hopkins KM. Readability and writing style analysis of selected allied health professional journals. J Allied Health 1991; 20: 25-37.
11. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 1996; 348: 1480-1483.
12. Hochhauser M. Readability of British and American medical prose. Why are unreadable articles still being written? BMJ 2003; 326: 711.
13. Schriger DL, Arora S, Altman DG. The content of medical journal Instructions for authors. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 48: 743-749, 749e.741-744.
14. Hall JC. The readability of original articles in surgical journals. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76: 68-70.
15. Manuscript Central. http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bjs [accessed 22 March 2007].
16. Wiley Interscience. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/home [accessed 22 March 2007].
17. Coleman M, Liau TL. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 1975; 60: 283-284.
18. McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading 1969; 12: 639-646.
19. Chew M, Villanueva EV, Van Der Weyden MB. Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views. J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 142-150.
20. Pierson DJ. The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respir Care 2004; 49: 1246-1252.
21. Radford DR, Smillie L, Wilson RF, Grace AM. The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication. Br Dent J 1999; 187: 376-379.
22. van Rossum M, Bosker BH, Pierik EG, Verheyen CC. Geographic origin of publications in surgical journals. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 244-247.
23. Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Readability of British and American medical prose at the start of the 21st century. BMJ 2002; 325: 1451-1452.
24. Tompkins RK, Ko CY, Donovan AJ. Internationalization of general surgical journals: origin and content of articles published in North America and Great Britain from 1983 to 1998. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 1345-1351.
25. Akobeng AK. Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child 2005; 90: 845-848.
26. Loke YK, Deny S. Does anybody read 'evidence-based' articles? BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 14.
27. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review - scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 1999; 318: 44-45.
28. Callaham ML. Research into peer review and scientific publication: journals look in the mirror. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 313-316.
29. Wager E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2821-2824.
30. Wager E, Middleton P. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (2)MR000002.
31. Callaham ML, Schriger DL. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 323-328.
32. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 673.
33. Schriger DL, Cooper RJ, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 334-337.
34. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999; 318: 23-27.
35. Purcell GP, Donovan SL, Davidoff F. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. JAMA 1998; 280: 227-228.
36. Ludbrook J. Readability of original articles in surgical journals. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76: 1038-1040.