Evolutionary trends in peer review

Journal of Allied Health

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 156-160

  Morey, Angela ^a   Garner, Angelia ^a   Faruque, Fazlay ^a   Yang, Gongchao ^b  

^a Health Information Management ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; OCCUPATION; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; REVIEW;

ALLIED HEALTH OCCUPATIONS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING;

EID: 80053099029     PISSN: 00907421     EISSN: 1945404X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Brown T. Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. Sense About Science [serial online]. London: Sense About Science; May 2004. Available from: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/PeerReview.pdf. Accessed Jan 24, 2010.
2. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 2007; 31: 145-152.
3. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Books; 1999.
4. Carpi A, Egger EA, Kuldell NH. Scientific communication: peer review. Visionlearning [serial online] 2009; 2(2): POS-2. Available from: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module-viewer.php? mid=159. Accessed Jan 24, 2010.
5. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20(8): 357-358.
6. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006; 295(3): 314-317. (Pubitemid 43112960)
7. Duchesne S, Jannin P. Proposing a manuscript peer-review checklist. Neuroimage 2008; 39: 1783-1787. (Pubitemid 351193008)
8. O'Gorman L. The (frustrating) state of peer review. Int Assoc Pattern Recogn Newsl [serial online]. 2008; 30(1): 3. Available from: http://www.iapr.org/docs/newsletter-2008-01.pdf . Accessed May 3, 2010.
9. Rockwell S. Ethics of peer review: a guide for manuscript reviewers. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Medicine, Office of Research Integrity. Available at: http://radonc.yale.edu/Images/Ethical-Issues-in-Peer-Review- tcm307-34211.pdf. Accessed Jan 28, 2010.
10. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, the PEER Investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? JAMA 1998; 280(3): 240-242. (Pubitemid 28493894)
11. Isenberg SJ, Sanchez E, Zafran KC. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer review process of an ophthalmic journal. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 881-884.
12. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1998; 280(3): 234-237. (Pubitemid 28493892)
13. Rogers LF. Manuscripts: to blind, or not to blind, that is the question. AJR 2002; 179: 1373. (Pubitemid 35386630)
14. Berquist TH. Publication in the AJR: critical interactions among authors, reviewers, and section editors. AJR 2008; 191: 1291-1292.
15. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994; 272(2): 96-97. (Pubitemid 24206035)
16. Bailar JC, Patterson K. The need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 654-657. (Pubitemid 15133695)
17. Edmunds LH Jr. A gift from anonymous. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77: 10-11. (Pubitemid 38129975)
18. Ware M. Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. Available from: http://www. publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCsummary4Ware final.pdf. Accessed Jan 29, 2010.
19. Mahawar KK, Kejariwal D, Malviya A, et al. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change? Asian J Surg 2009; 32(4): 240-246.
20. Rennie D. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2759-2760. (Pubitemid 34591956)
21. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005; 435(9): 737-738. (Pubitemid 40839708)
22. Goodman SND, Altman G, George SL. Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13: 753-756. (Pubitemid 28523565)
23. Lukic IK, Marusic M. Appointment of statistical editor and quality of statistics in a small medical journal. Croat Med J 2000; 42(5): 500-503. (Pubitemid 33044336)
24. Lock S. Does editorial peer review work? Ann Intern Med 1994; 121(1): 60-61.
25. Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hejri S. Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies. BMC Med Res Methodol [online] 2006, 6: 37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-37. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/37. Accessed Mar 18, 2010.
26. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006; 295(14): 1675-1680.
27. Hoppin FG Jr. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1019-1023.
28. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML. Author perception of peer review. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2790-2793.
29. Schriger DL, Cooper RJ, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40(3): 334-339.
30. Colliver JA. Commentary on "review criteria for research manuscripts." Teach Learn Med 2002; 14(2): 75-76.
31. Cooper ML. Problems, pitfalls, and promise in the peer-review process. Perspect Psychol Sci 2009; 4(1): 84-90.
32. Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a "down-to-earth" approach. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28(2): 81-87. (Pubitemid 39079442)
33. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect of the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 1998; 280(3): 237-240. (Pubitemid 28493893)
34. Schroter S, Godlee F, Smith R, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008; 101: 507-514.
35. Wagner E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2821-2824. (Pubitemid 34591974)
36. Laine C, Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139(12): 1038-1040. (Pubitemid 37523067)
37. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006; 99: 178-182.
38. Williamson A. What will happen to peer review? Learned Publ 2003; 16(1): 15-20. (Pubitemid 36136736)
39. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2762-2765. (Pubitemid 34591957)
40. Walsh EM, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176: 47-51. (Pubitemid 30051088)
41. Young SN. Peer review of manuscripts: theory and practice. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2003; 28(5): 327-330. (Pubitemid 37211274)