Tidsskriftet, external professional evaluation and medical publishing;Tidsskriftet, ekstern fagvurdering og medisinsk publisering

Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening

Volumn 126, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 20-23

  Bjørheim, Jens ^a   Frich, Jan C ^a   Gjersvik, Petter ^c   Jacobsen, Geir ^b   Swensen, Elisabeth ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskapelige Universitet ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PROGRAM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; ARTICLE; HISTORY; NORWAY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; MANUSCRIPTS; NORWAY; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS;

EID: 84858563579     PISSN: 00292001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Nylenna M, Larsen Ø. Medisinsk publisering i Norge. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2005; 125: 1506-9.
2. Haug C, Gjersvik PJ. Kvalitet og uavhengighet. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2002; 122: 990.
3. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. I: Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences. 2. utg. London: BMJ Books, 2003: 1-13.
4. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences. 2. utg. London: BMJ Books, 2003.
5. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1985.
6. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effectiveness of journal peer review. I: Godlee F, Jefferson T, red. Peer review in health sciences, 2. utg. London: BMJ Books, 2003: 62-75.
7. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2784-6.
8. Overbeke J, Wager E. The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review. I: Godlee F, Jefferson T, red. Peer review in health sciences, 2. utg. London: BMJ Books, 2003: 45-61.
9. Smith R. The future of peer review. I: Godlee F, Jefferson T, red. Peer review in health sciences, 2. utg. London: BMJ Books, 2003: 329-46.
10. Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994; 28: 1134-9.
11. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 234-7.
12. Justice AC, Mildred KC, Winkler MA et al. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? JAMA 1998; 280: 240-2.
13. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999; 318: 4-5.
14. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002; 287: 2762-5.
15. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S et al. Effect of open review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999; 318: 23-7.
16. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280: 231-3.
17. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 673-5.
18. Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to survive peer review. London: BMJ Books, 2002.
19. Ringnes A. Fra manuskript til artikkel i Tidsskriftet. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2006; 126: 18-9.
20. Rennie D. Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle Nerve 2001; 24: 1274-7.
21. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998; 280: 222-4.
22. Weidenberg JM. Unmasking ghost writers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 70: 208-9.
23. Wagena EJ. The scandal of unfair behaviour of senior faculty. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 308.
24. Kwok LS. The white bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 554-6.
25. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM et al. Sponsing, forfatterskap og ansvarlighet. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2001; 121: 2531-2.
26. International Commitee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniformed requirement for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. www.icmje.org (9.11.2005).
27. Nylenna M. Forfatterskapskriteriene er endret. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2000; 120: 1844.
28. Kempers RD. Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 883-8.
29. Bennett DM, Taylor DM. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emerg Med 2003; 15: 263-70.
30. Jacobs A, Carpenter J, Donnelly J et al. The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications: results of a Delphi study. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 2: 311-6.
31. Jacobs A, Wager E. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 2: 317-22.
32. Aasland OG, Nylenna M. «.. at byde Dem et verdifuldt og underholdende Stof». Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 1999; 119: 2482-6.
33. Gulbrandsen P, Schroeder TV, Milerad J et al. Paper or screen, mother tounge or English: which is better? A randomized trial. JAMA 2002; 287: 2851-3.