The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: Characteristics of " Elite" reviewers;El proceso de " peer-review" en las Revistas Biomédicas: Cualidades de los Revisores de " Excelencia"

Neurologia

Volumn 25, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 521-529

  Alfonso, F ^a  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

Author keywords

Biomedical Journals; Characteristics of "Elite" reviewers; Peer review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EDITOR; PEER REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; SOCIETIES;

EID: 78649318153     PISSN: 02134853     EISSN: 15781968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2010.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alfonso F., Bermejo J., Segovia J. Nuevas recomendaciones del Comité Internacional de Editores Médicos. Cambiando el énfasis: de la uniformidad de los requisitos técnicos a los aspectos bioéticos. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2004, 57:592-593.
2. Alfonso F., Bermejo J., Heras M., Segovia J. Revista Española de Cardiología 2009: Reflexiones Editoriales. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009, 62:1482-1493.
3. Alfonso F., Bermejo J., Segovia J. Impactología, impactitis, impactoterapia. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2005, 58:1239-1245.
4. Alfonso F. Revistas biomédicas españolas: relevancia académica, impacto científico o factor de impacto. ¿Qué es lo que importa?. Rev Neurol. 2009, 48:113-116.
5. Alfonso F. El duro peregrinaje de las revistas biomédicas españolas hacia la excelencia: ¿Quién nos ayuda? Calidad, impacto y méritos de investigación. Endocrinol Nutr. 2010, 57:110-120.
6. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Disponible en: http://www.icmje.org/.
7. Matías-Guiu J., García Ramos R. El proceso de mejora y decisión de un artículo. Neurología. 2009, 24:353-358.
8. Matías-Guiu J., García-Ramos R. The impact factor and editorial decisions. Neurología. 2008, 23:342-348.
9. Matías-Guiu J, Moral E, García-Ramos R, Martínez-Vila E. El perfil de los evaluadores de una publicación médica en relación a la respuesta. Neurología. 2010;25:530-535.
10. Davidoff F. Improving peer review: whoós responsible?. BMJ. 2004, 328:657-658.
11. Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wager E., Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review. A systematic review. JAMA. 2002, 287:2784-2786.
12. Benos D.J., Kirk K.L., Hall J.E. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003, 27:47-52.
13. Lemann J. Serving as a reviewer. Kidney International. 2002, 62:1081-1087.
14. DeMaria A.N. The elite reviewer. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003, 41:157-158.
15. Casadevall A., Fang F.C. Is peer review censorship?. Infect Immun. 2009, 77:1273-1274.
16. Ingelfinger F.J. Definition of " sole" contribution. N Engl J Med. 1969, 281:676-677.
17. Alfonso F., Bermejo J., Segovia J. Duplicate or redundant publication: can we afford it?. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2005, 58:601-604.
18. Bermejo J., Segovia J., Heras M., Alfonso F. Gestión electrónica de manuscritos en Revista Española de Cradiología. Nuevas herramientas para viejos objetivos. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2007, 60:1206-1210.
19. Balistreri W.F. Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts. J Pediatr. 2007, 151:107-108.
20. Kliewer M.A., Freed K.S., DeLong D.M., Pickhardt P.J., Provenzale J.M. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR. 2005, 184:1731-1735.
21. Drazen J.M., Van Der Weyden M.B., Sahni P., Rosenberg J., Marusic A., Laine C., et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interest in ICMJE Journals. N Engl J Med. 2009, 361:1896-1897.
22. Burnham J.C. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990, 263:1323-1329.
23. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journal. J R Soc Med. 2006, 99:178-182.
24. Publishing research consortium: Peer review in schoolarly journals. Perspective of the scholarly community -an international study-London: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008; 80.p.1-80.
25. Kmietowicz Z. Double blind peer review are fairer and more objective, say academics. BMJ. 2008, 336:241.
26. Johnston S.C., Lowenstein D.H., Ferriero D.M., Messing R.O., Oksenberg J.R., Hauser S.L. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Ann Neurol. 2007, 61:A10-A12.
27. Schroter S., Black N., Evans S., Carpenter J., Godlee F., Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2004, 328:673-675.
28. Baxt W.G., Waeckerle J.F., Berlin J.A., Callaham M.L. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictious manuscript to evaluate peer review performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1999, 32:310-317.
29. Krawitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewer's recommendations at general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS ONE. 2010; 5:e10072 (1-5).
30. Hargens L.L. Schoolarly consensus and journals rejection rates. Am Sociol Rev. 1988, 53:139-151.
31. Kliewer M.A., DeLong D.M., Freed K., Jenkins C.B., Paulson E.K., Provenzale J.M. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology.: How reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. AJR. 2004, 183:1545-1550.
32. Link A.M. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998, 280:246-247.
33. Aarssen LW, Lortie CJ, Budden AE, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Tregenza T. Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behabior? PLoS ONE. 2009; 4:e6283 (1-3).
34. Godlee F., Gale C.R., Martyn C. 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.
35. Van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1998, 280:234-237.
36. Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998, 280:240-242.
37. DeAngelis C.D., Thorton J.P. Preserving confidiality in the peer review process. JAMA. 2008, 299:1956.
38. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. A beginning that should led to complete transparency. BMJ. 1999, 318:4-5.
39. Opening up peer review. Nat Cell Biol. 2007; 9:1.
40. Walsh E., Rooney M., Appleby L., Wilkinson G. open peer-review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Phsychiatry. 2000, 176:47-51.
41. Rivara F.P., Commings P., Ringold S., Bergman A.B., Joffe A., Christakis D.A. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. J Pediatr. 2007, 151:202-205.
42. Earnshaw JJ, Fardon JR, Guillou PJ, Johnson CD, Murie JA, Murray GD. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. An Rol Coll Surg Engl. 200;82:133-5.
43. Schroter S., Tite L., Hutchings A., Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviews suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006, 295:314-317.
44. Stossel T.P. Reviewer status and review quality: Experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med. 1985, 312:658-659.
45. Evans A.T., McNutt R.A., Fletcher S.W., Fletcher R.H. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993, 8:422-428.
46. 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.
47. Callahan ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLsO Med. 2007; 4:e40 (32-39).
48. Gónzalez-Alcaide G., Alonso-Arroyo A., Valderrama-Zurián J.C., Aleixandre-Benavent R. Women in Spanish cardiological research. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009, 62:941-954.
49. Jagsi R., Guancial E.A., Worobey C.C., Henault L.E., Chang Y.C., Starr R., et al. The " gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature: a 35 year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006, 355:281-287.
50. Andreotti F., Crea F. Women in cardiology: a European perspective. Heart. 2005, 91:275-276.
51. Davo M.C., Vives C., lvarez-Dardet C.A. Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003, 57:936-937.
52. Gilbert J.R., Williams E.S., Lumdberg G.D. Is there gender bias in JAMAós peer review process?. JAMA. 1994, 272:139-142.
53. Luty J., Arokiadass S.M., Easow J.M., Anapreddy J.R. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J Med Ethics. 2009, 35:200-202.