How to review journal manuscripts

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 142, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 472-486

  Rosenfeld, Richard M ^a  

^a SUNY DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEWJ; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VALIDITY;

CONFIDENTIALITY; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 77949461505     PISSN: 01945998     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.010     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 263 (1990) 1323-1329
2. Laine C., and Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Ann Int Med 139 (2003) 1038-1040
3. Fletcher R., and Ferris L. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals. http://www.wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals Accessed October 10, 25, 2009
4. Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F., et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. JAMA 280 (1998) 231-233
5. DeMaria A. What constitutes a great review?. J Am Coll Cardiol 42 (2003) 1314-1315
6. Flood A.B. From the editors: external peer review at HSR. Health Services Res 39 (2004) 1235-1250
7. Rosenfeld R.M. The 7 habits of highly effective data users. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118 (1998) 144-158
8. Rosenfeld R.M. Experience. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136 (2007) 337-339
9. Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D., et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134 (2001) 663-694
10. Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273 (1995) 408-412
11. Hollis S., and Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis?. Survey of published randomized controlled trials. BMJ 319 (1999) 670-674
12. Schulz K.F., and Grimes D.A. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet 359 (2002) 696-700
13. Moher D., Schulz K.F., and Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285 (2001) 1987-1991
14. Sackett D.L. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 32 (1979) 51-63
15. Rosenfeld R.M. Review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 14 (2009) 435-437
16. Rosenfeld R.M. Meta-analysis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 66 (2004) 186-195
17. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009) W65-W94. www.prisma-statement.org Accessed January 30, 2010
18. National Library of Medicine Glossary. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101014.html Accessed January 21, 2010.
19. Gardner M.J., and Altman D.G. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Stat Med 292 (1986) 746-750
20. Rosenfeld R.M. Confidence. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137 (2007) 697-699
21. Sterne J.A., and Smith G.D. Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?. BMJ 322 (2001) 226-231
22. Poole C. Low P-values or narrow confidence intervals: which are more durable?. Epidemiology 12 (2001) 291-294
23. Phillips B., Ball C., Sackett D., et al. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (March 2009). http://www.cebm.net Accessed January 10, 2010
24. Huth E.J. The case report. How to write and publish papers in the medical science. 2nd ed. (1990), Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 69-76
25. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. publication ethics: sponsorship, authorship, and accountability (updated October 2008). http://www.icmje.org Accessed January 4, 2010
26. Weijer C., Bickens B., and Meslin E.M. Bioethics for clinicians: 10. Research ethics. Can Med Assoc J 156 (1997) 1153-1157
27. Lemaire F. Do all types of human research need ethics committee approval?. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 174 (2006) 363-366
28. Thibeault S.L., and Benninger M. Informed consent in otolaryngology research. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133 (2005) 651-653
29. Panda M. Research status of case reports for medical school institutional review boards. JAMA 298 (2007) 1277-1278
30. Drazen J.M., Van Der Weyden M.B., Sahni P., et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. JAMA 303 (2010) 75-76
31. Provenzale J.M., and Stanley R.J. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR 185 (2005) 848-854
32. Scott-Lichter D, the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. CSE's white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2009 update. Reston, VA; 2009:25-29. Accessible at: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/white_paper.cfm. Accessed January 10, 2010.
33. Walbot V. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts?. J Biology 8 (2009) 24-26
34. Goodman T. The Forbes book of business quotations. 14,266 thoughts on the business of life (1997), Black Dog Leventhal Publishers, New York 180 619