Editorial: Journal peer review in integrative medicine discipline

Seminars in Integrative Medicine

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-4

  Hojat, Mohammadreza ^a   Rosenweig, Steven ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; AWARENESS; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 5144232313     PISSN: 15431150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sigm.2004.05.005     Document Type: Editorial

References (27)

1. Bailar J.C. Patterson K. Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda N Engl J Med 312 1985 654-657
2. Crane D. The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals Am Sociol 32 1967 195-201
3. DeGrazia A. The scientific reception system and Dr. Velikovsky Am Behav Sci 7 1963 38-56
4. Lock S. A Difficult Balance : Editorial Peer Review in Medicine 1985 PA ISI Press Philadelphia
5. Lock S. The Future of Medical Journals 1992 British Medical Journal Plymouth, England
6. Jefferson T. Godlee F. Peer Review in Health Care 1999 British Journal Publishing Group London, England
7. Hojat M. Gonnella J.S. Caelleigh A.S. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process Adv Health Sci Educ 8 2003 75-96
8. Caelleigh A.S. Hojat M. Steinecke A. Gonnella J.S. Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript Teach Learn Med 15 2003 163-167
9. Mahoney M. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in peer review system Cogn Ther Res 1 1977 161-175
10. Olson C.M. Peer review of biomedical literature Am J Emerg Med 8 1990 356-358
11. Linde K. Clausius N. Ramirez G. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trails Lancet 350 9081 1997 834-843
12. Relman A. Angell M. Resolved: Psychosocial interventions can improve clinical outcomes in organic disease: Rebuttals Psychosom Med 64 2002 564-567
13. Rosenthal R. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance of null results Psychol Bull 86 1979 638-541
14. Greenwald A.G. Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis Psychol Bull 82 1975 1-20
15. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence JAMA 263 1990 1385-1389
16. Carpenter J. Hagemaster J. Joiner B. An even closer look at therapeutic touch JAMA 280 1998 1905-1908
17. Merton R.K. The Matthew effect in science Science 159 1968 56-63
18. Peters D.P. Ceci S.J. Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again Behav Brain Sci 5 1982 187-195
19. Resch K.I. Ernst E. Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy J R Soc Med 93 2000 164-167
20. Fisher M. Friedman S.B. Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review JAMA 272 1994 143-146
21. Godlee F. Gale C. Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their names JAMA 280 1998 237-240
22. McNutt R.A. Evans A.T. Fletcher R.H. et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review JAMA 263 1990 1371-1376
23. Armstrong S.J. We need to rethink the editorial role of peer reviewers Chron Higher Educ 43 9 1996 B3 October
24. American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2002 APA Washington, DC
25. Colman A.M. Editorial role in author-referee disagreements Bull Br Psychol Soc 32 1979 390-391
26. Bloom F.E. The importance of reviewers Science 283 1999 789
27. Altman D.G. Chalmers I. Herxheimer A. Is there a case for an international medical scientific press council? JAMA 272 1994 166-167