Travelling but never arriving: Reflections of a retiring editor

British Medical Journal

Volumn 329, Issue 7460, 2004, Pages 242-244

  Smith, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STAFF;

EID: 4043092729     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7460.242     Document Type: Editorial

References (22)

1. Rennie D. Fourth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA 2002;287:2759-60.
2. Smith R. Medical editor lambasts journals and editors. BMJ 2001;323:651.
3. Haynes RB. Where's the meat in clinical journals? ACP Journal Club 1993;119:A22-A23.
4. Smith R. Doctors are not scientists. BMJ 2004;328:0-h. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.0-h
5. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Scientific publications: free for all? London: Stationery Office, 2004. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf (accessed 23 Jul 2004).
6. Kaiser J. Congress puts similar heat on NIH. Science 2004;305:458.
7. Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998;317:1181-4.
8. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12
9. Rennie D. CONSORT revised - improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:2006-7.
10. Groves T, Mullner M. Making research papers in the BMJ more accessible. BMJ 2002;325:456.
11. Overbeke J, Wager E. The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review. In Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003:45-61.
12. Martyn C. Peer review: some questions from Socrates. In Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003:322-8.
13. CONSORT statement. www.consort-statement.org/ (accessed 23 Jul 2004).
14. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
15. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41-4.
16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al, for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
17. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001;285:1992-5.
18. Delamothe T, Smith R. Open access publishing takes off. BMJ 2004;328:1-3. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7430.1
19. Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 1997;314:1009-12.
20. Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 1997;278:579-85.
21. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. A systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454-65.
22. Hussain A, Smith R. Declaring financial competing interests: survey of five general medical journals. BMJ 2001;323:263-4.