Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts

Cerebrovascular Diseases

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 243-246

  Alexandrov, Andrei V ^a   Hennerici, Michael G ^b   Norrving, Bo ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Ethics; Peer review; Validity

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC REVIEW;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; INTERNET; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 67650102949     PISSN: 10159770     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000228588     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Pearn J: Publication: an ethical imperative. BMJ 1995;310:1313-1315.
2. 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;121:60-61. (Pubitemid 24206041)
3. 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;295:314-317. (Pubitemid 43112960)
4. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS: Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006;4:13. (Pubitemid 43950608)
5. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-233.
6. Callaham ML, Tercier J: The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007;4:e40.
7. Callaham ML, Schriger DL: Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:323-328.
8. Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG: Writing good abstracts. Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256-259.
9. European Stroke Conference: http://www.eurostroke.com/submission- instructions.html (accessed July 2, 2009).
10. Alexandrov AV: How to write a research paper. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;18;135-138.
11. International Stroke Conference: Writing good abstracts. 2009. http://strokeconference.americanheart.org/portal/strokeconference/sc/ writinggoodabstracts.
12. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998;280:240-242.
13. 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.
14. Holloway RG, Benesch C: When disclosures are more interesting than the evidence. Stroke 2009;40:e44.
15. Anonymous: Policy on papers' contributors. Nature 1999;399:393.
16. Pakes GE: Writing manuscripts describing clinical trials: a guide for pharmacotherapeutic researchers. Ann Pharmacother 2001;35:770-779.
17. Pamir MN: How to write an experimental research paper. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002;83:109-113.