Getting to yes: The fate of neuroradiology manuscripts rejected by radiology over a 2-year period

Radiology

Volumn 260, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 3-5

  Khosla, Ankaj ^a   McDonald, Robert J ^a   Bornmann, Lutz ^b   Kallmes, David F ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEURORADIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RADIOLOGY; WRITTEN LANGUAGE;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; NEURORADIOGRAPHY; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79959555289     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110490     Document Type: Editorial

References (8)

1. Weller AC. Editorial peer review: its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2001.
2. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol 2011;45:199-245.
3. McDonald RJ, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF. Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology: outcomes and commentary. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28(8):1430-1434.
4. Chew FS. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;156(3):627-632.
5. STARD Statement checklist. STARD Statement website. http://www.stard- statement.org/. Accessed March 3, 2011.
6. CONSORT Statement checklist. CONSORT Statement website. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/. Accessed March 3, 2011.
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(4):264-269, W64.
8. Levine D, Bankier AA, Halpern EF. Submissions to Radiology: our top 10 list of statistical errors. Radiology 2009;253(2):288-290.