Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Shashok, Karen ^a  

^a NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; CONTENT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REVIEW; SCREENING; WRITING; ARTICLE; PUBLICATION; STANDARD;

COMMUNICATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; WRITING;

EID: 40949089073     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-3     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Author's editors: facilitators of science information transfer. K Shashok, Learned Publishing 2001 14 2 113 121 10.1087/095315101300059495
2. Effects of editorial peer review. A systematic review. T Jefferson P Alderson E Wager F Davidoff, JAMA 2002 287 21 2784 2786 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784 12038911
3. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. T Jefferson E Wager F Davidoff, JAMA 2002 287 21 2786 2790 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786 12038912
4. Standardization versus diversity: How can we push peer review research forward? K Shashok, Medscape General Medicine 2005 7 1 http://www.medscape.com/ viewarticle/498238 Posted 02/17/2005
5. What medical writing means to me. E Wager, Mens Sana Monographs 2007 5 169 178 http://www.msmonogra.page=178;aulast=Wager;type=0
6. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. ML Callaham J Tercier, PLoS Med 2007 4 1 e40 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040 17411314 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
7. Mentors of tomorrow (Editorial). Anonymous, Nature 2007 447 14 June 754 17568705
8. Lost in translation: Contributions of editors to the meanings of text. J Hartley A Branthwaite F Ganier L Heurley, J Information Sci 2007 33 5 551 565 DOI: 10.1177/0165551506076392. Version published October 1, 2007. 10.1177/0165551506076392
9. Refereeing of scholarly works for primary publishing. MS Dalton, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 1995 30 213 250
10. Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: a non-Anglo-American view on publications, referees and language. MB Aalbers, Area 2004 36 3 319 322 10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00229.x
11. The publishing gap between rich and poor: the focus of AuthorAID. P Freeman A Robbins, J Public Health Policy 2006 27 2 196 203 http://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_qa4020/is_200601/ai_n16731527 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200071 16961198
12. The Tenerife Statement. http://ppriseal.informe.com/manifesto-draft-2- dt7.html Draft 2, March 2007. Accessed 27 July 2007
13. No pardon for poor English in science. S Jaffe, The Scientist 44 45 2003; March 10
14. Readability and clarity. J Whitehouse, Physiotherapy 1993 79 3 188 189
15. Physiotherapy. Guide for Authors. Anonymous, 2007 http://www.elsevier. com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/702542/authorinstructions Accessed 5 July 2007
16. Is broken English bad for us? R Fox, WAME listserve posting October 19, 1999
17. C Iverson S Christiansen A Flanagin PB Fontanarosa RM Glass B Gregoline SJ Lurie HS Meyer MA Winker RK Young, AMA Manual of Style, a Guide for Authors and Editors Oxford: Oxford University Press 10 2007
18. The content of medical journal instructions to authors. DL Schriger S Arora DG Altman, Ann Emerg Med 2006 48 743 749 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.03.028 17112938
19. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. FC Day DL Schriger C Todd RL Wears, Ann Emerg Med 2002 40 329 333 10.1067/mem.2002.127326 12192359
20. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. DD Belcher, Journal of Second Language Writing 2007 16 1 22 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
21. Acceptance address: Good reporting-an essential component of good science. DG Altman, Science Editor 2007 30 5 148 150
22. What do JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. K Dickerson E Ssemanda C Mansell D Rennie, BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 44 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/44 17894854 10.1186/1471-2288-7-44
23. Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views. M Chew EV Villanueva MB Van Der Weyden, J Royal Soc Med 2007 100 142 150 http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/3/142 10.1258/jrsm.100.3.142
24. Culture and conventions: writing and reading Dutch scientific English. J Burrough-Boenisch, Utrecht (The Netherlands): LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (dissertation no. 59) 2002 http://www.lotpublications.nl/index.html Accessed 29 January 2007
25. The rhetoric of research. R Horton, BMJ 1995 310 985 987 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6985/985 7728037
26. How authors can cope with the burden of English as an international language. JR Benfield CB Feak, Chest 2006 129 69 1728 1730 http://www. chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/129/6/1728.pdf 10.1378/chest.129.6.1728 16778297
27. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars. Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. T Lillis MJ Curry, Written Communication 2006 23 1 3 35 10.1177/0741088305283754
28. Reframing notions of competence in scholarly writing: From individual to networked activity. TM Lillis MJ Curry, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 2006 53 63 78
29. Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: the research article referee report. I Fortanet, English As an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication (Linguistic Insights series) Bern: Peter Lang, Burgess S, Martín P, 2008
30. About TESOL Quarterly. Anonymous, 2007 http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/ seccss.asp?CID=209&DID=1679 Accessed 23 January 2007
31. NS and NNS scientists' amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. J Burrough-Boenisch, English for Specific Purposes 2005 24 1 35 39 10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.004
32. Cardiothoracic surgeons divided by a common language. JR Benfield, Ann Thorac Surg 2007 84 363 364 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.02.097 17643601
33. Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. A Misak M Marusic A Marusic, Journal of Second Language Writing 2005 14 122 132 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.001
34. Shapers of published NNS research articles. J Burrough-Boenisch, Journal of Second Language Writing 2003 12 223 243 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7
35. Eliciting substantive revision of manuscripts for peer review through process-oriented conferences with Spanish scientists. ME Kerans, Trabajos en lingüística aplicada Barcelona: Univerbook, Mũoz C, 2001 339 348
36. Close to home. Notes on the post-publication withdrawal of a Spanish research paper. ME Kerans, Ibérica 2002 4 39 54 http://www.aelfe.org/ documents/text4-Kerans.pdf
37. Project management and quality assurance in cover-to-cover translation of a medical journal. ME Kerans, Proceedings, 2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Limerick, Ireland, 10-13 July 2005 Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, Hayhoe G, 2005 220 236 DOI: 10.1109/IPCC.2005.1494181.
38. Translating the unedited science manuscript: who fixes what shortcomings? K Shashok ME Kerans, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Specialized Translation Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Chabás J, Cases M, Gaser R, 2001 101 104
39. Mediterranean Editors and Translators. MET Workshops 2007. First steps for translating and editing research articles-how to adopt a genre analysis approach. Corpus-driven translation and editing of specialist texts http://www.metmeetings.org/?section=workshops_spring_2007 Accessed 7 February 2007
40. Mediterranean Editors and Translators. METM07. Corpus-guided translation and editing of specialist texts http://www.metmeetings.org/?section= workshops_spring_2007 Accessed 9 August 2007
41. Upgrading our Instructions for Author. DL Schriger RL Wears RJ Cooper ML Callaham, Ann Emerg Med 2003 41 565 567 10.1067/mem.2003.134 12658258
42. Current status of peer review at Annals of Emergency Medicine. SM Green ML Callaham, Ann Emerg Med 2006 48 3 304 308 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.07.009
43. An instructional guide for peer reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. American College of Emergency Physicians, http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/ extractor/graphics/em-acep/ Accessed 18 April 2007.
44. Unscientific biases in peer review. K Shashok, European Science Editing 2004 30 2 54 55
45. Successful communication in English for non-native users of the language. International conferences make Spain a world leader in writing, editing and translation research. K Shashok, Panace@ 2007 VIII 25 82 86 http://www.medtrad. org/panacea/IndiceGeneral/n25_congresos-shashok.pdf
46. Closing the gap between editing practice and theory. METM 06. K Shashok, European Science Editing 2007 33 1 6 7
47. Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. J Flowerdew, TESOL Quarterly 2000 34 1 127 150 10.2307/3588099
48. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. T Jefferson M Rudin S Brodney Folse F Davidoff, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 2 http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/mr000016.html Accessed 10 July 2006.