Evaluating the surgery literature: Can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 250, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 152-158

  Sosa, Julie A ^a   Mehta, Pritesh ^b   Thomas, Daniel C ^a   Berland, Gretchen ^a   Gross, Cary ^a   McNamara, Robert L ^a   Rosenthal, Ronnie ^a   Udelsman, Robert ^a   Bravata, Dawn M ^c   Roman, Sanziana A ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CITATION ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY; GENERAL SURGERY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM;

BIBLIOMETRICS; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 68249125955     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ad8905     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990; 263:1321-1322.
2. Day FC, Schriger DL, Todd C, et al. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:329-333.
3. Pathman DE, Viera AJ, Newton WP. Research published in 2003 by U.S. Family Medicine authors. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21:6-16.
4. Paladugu R, Schein M, Gardezi S, et al. One hundred citation classics in general surgical journals. World J Surg. 2002;26:1099-1105.
5. Dubin D, Hafner AW, Arndt KA. Citation classics in clinical dermatologic journals. Citation analysis, biomedical journals, and landmark articles, 1945-1990. Arch Dermatol. 1993;129:1121-1129.
6. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
7. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:240-242.
8. Callaham ML, Schriger DL. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:323-328.
9. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237-240.
10. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784-2786.
11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1990;33:159-174.
12. Hadorn DC, Baker D, Hodges JS, et al. Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:749-754.
13. Rigby AS. Statistical reviewing for disability and rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;99999:1-7.
14. Ko CY, Sack J, Chang JT, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials: where quality of reporting may be improved. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:443-447.
15. Merenstein J, Rao G, D'Amico F. Clinical research in family medicine: quantity and quality of published articles. Fam Med. 2003;35:284-288.
16. Kurichi JE, Sonnad SS. Statistical methods in the surgical literature. JACS. 2006;202:476-484.
17. Berle D, Starcevic V. Inconsistencies between reported test statistics and p-values in two psychiatry journals. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007;16:202-207.
18. Goodman SN, Altman DG, George SL. Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: caveat lector? J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:753-756.
19. Katz KA, Crawford GH, Lu DW, et al. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51:234-240.
20. Schumm LP, Fisher JS, Thisted RA, et al. Clinical trials in general surgical journals: are methods better reported? Surgery. 1999;125:41-45.
21. Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Readability of British and American medical prose at the start of the 21st century. BMJ. 2002;325:1451-1452.
22. Eiser AR, Ellis G. Viewpoint: cultural competence and the African American experience with health care: the case for specific content in cross-cultural education. Acad Med. 2007;82:176-183.
23. SCI Journal Citation Reports: a bibliometric analysis of science journals in the ISI database. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information, Inc; 1993.
24. Furlan JC, Fehlings MG. A web-based systematic review on traumatic spinal cord injury comparing the "Citation Classics" with the consumers' perspectives. J Neurotrauma. 2006;23:156-169.
25. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? JMLA. 2003;91:42-46.
26. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, et al. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002;287:2805-2808.
27. Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii-iv, ix-145.
28. Hall J. The readability of original articles in surgical journals. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76:68-70.
29. Aasland O. [Reader survey of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2007]. Tidsskrift for den Norske lægeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny række. 2008;128:1512-1514.