Processing a manuscript submitted to a medical journal

Minerva Anestesiologica

Volumn 75, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 574-576

  Cavaliere, F ^a   Antonelli, M ^a  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Journal article; Journalism, medical; Peer review

Indexed keywords

MEDICAL LITERATURE; NOTE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION;

PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; WRITING;

EID: 72249086977     PISSN: 03759393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Tobin MJ. Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1013-1018
2. Hoppin FG Jr. How I review an original scientific paper. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1019-1026
3. Seals DR, Tanaka H. Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advan Physiol Educ 2000;23:52-58
4. Alexander GR. A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Matern Child Health J 2005;9:113-117
5. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2):MR000016. (Pubitemid 351805760)
6. Elvik R. Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals? Acid Anal Prev 1998;30:101-118
7. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790 (Pubitemid 34591963)
8. Rochon PA, Bero LA, Bay AM, Gold JL, Dergal JM, Binns MA et al. Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. JAMA 2002;287:2853-2856
9. 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;121:11-21.
10. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 1996;348:1480-1483
11. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJ. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:979-985 (Pubitemid 44498261)
12. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-629 (Pubitemid 29281657)
13. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:310-317
14. Rothwell PM, Martyn CM. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone. Brain 2000;123:1964-1969
15. Callaham ML, Schriger DL. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer review ers. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:323-328
16. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673.
17. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-428